Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 February 2: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 13:57, 2 February 2006

< February 1	>

February 2, 2006

Template:User Sex EducatioN

Template:User admins ignoring policy

Look, we can all be angry at admins who don't follow policy. I'm annoyed by it myself, and wish that people, and admins especially, stick to policy. But adding a link to Kelly Martin's RFC using the word "pissed" is just a personal attack. Hope I am following policy by bringing it here. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Definitely a personal attack. -Chairman S. 11:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: perusal of WP:CSD suggests that {{db-attack}} might well apply. Any takers? —Phil | Talk 11:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if we could, I recommend that we don't. It would just lead to more controversy and more "pissed off" users, and we've had quite enough of that. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, though the link may not be the best choice, the sentiment is valid. It is not a personal attack, because the user is upset about an action, not a person. If you feel that the link is the source of the problem, find a better page to link to that represents the subject. --Dschor 12:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A house divided against itself cannot stand. If wikipedians don't believe in wikipedia then what's the point? If you chose to be part of any "team" (marriage, football) and don't like how it's going, either work to fix it, or leave. But hanging around being disparaging isn't a valid option.--Esprit15d 13:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CityRailSydney/Navigation end

Delete — This template was only a copy of Template:CityRailSydney modified to fit Redfern railway station, Sydney. I fixed that so has made this template obsolete. Harryboyles 10:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC) Harryboyles 10:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. -Chairman S. 11:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User CAoW

See also Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Shanedidona/CAoW, and Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 February 2.

Delete — Totally inappropriate. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - attempt to get around previous AfD decision.--Sar e kOfVulcan 08:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Recreation of deleted content. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Tviv and Template:Tviv this

Links to TV IV, an "encyclopedia of TV-related items" project. We don't generally link to such secondary sources unless they're sisterprojects. >Radiant< 23:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -Xol 00:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep seems analogous to {{imdb name}}, {{isfdb name}} and similar external link templates. I think these are a good thing, in general. DES ^(talk) 00:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I doubt TVIV is as notable as IMDb. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 00:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Dustimagic *\o/* ^{(talk/contribs)} *\o/* 02:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per DES above. Are you wanting to annihilate Category:External link templates, which seems to include its fair share of "secondary sources"? —Phil | Talk 11:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not a primary source and WHOA does it have a lot of ads. Boy. I am gonna love going through more External link templates. -- Netoholic @ 13:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:H2g2

Links to H2G2, another "encyclopedia of everything" project. We don't generally link to such secondary sources unless they're sisterprojects. >Radiant< 23:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -Xol 00:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Advertising for the BBC. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 00:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Dustimagic *\o/* ^{(talk/contribs)} *\o/* 02:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per DES above. Are you wanting to annihilate Category:External link templates, which seems to include its fair share of "secondary sources"? —Phil | Talk 11:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's not a primary source. -- Netoholic @ 13:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 48: / Line 48: @@
 *'''Delete''' as per nom. [[User:Dustimagic|'''Dustimagic''']] *\o/* <sup>([[User talk:Dustimagic|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Dustimagic|contribs]])</sup> *\o/* 02:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * '''Keep''' as per [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[#Template:Tviv and Template:Tviv this|above]]. Are you wanting to annihilate [[:Category:External link templates]], which seems to include its fair share of "secondary sources"? —[[User:Phil Boswell|Phil]] | [[User talk:Phil Boswell|Talk]] 11:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
+*'''Delete''' - it's not a primary source. -- [[User:Netoholic|Netoholic]] [[User talk:Netoholic|@]] 13:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)