Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 May 15

< May 14	May 16 >

May 15[edit]

Template:Ukrainian Premier League[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template is now obsolete, now that I have fixed the previous stacking problem that existed with all of the Ukrainian soccer templates. Now all Ukrainian soccer templates can stack up on one another using the standard fb start-fb end code that is used to stack templates in all other soccer articles (see 2006_World_Cup#External_links for instance). The three templates nominated for deletion were created solely to stack smaller templates together and are now no longer necessary —Palffy 23:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, now obsolete. —dima /talk/ 23:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Phoenix 02:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this template and two listed immediately below. Conscious 19:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Ukrainian First League[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template is now obsolete, now that I have fixed the previous stacking problem that existed with all of the Ukrainian soccer templates. Now all Ukrainian soccer templates can stack up on one another using the standard fb start-fb end code that is used to stack templates in all other soccer articles (see 2006_World_Cup#External_links for instance). The three templates nominated for deletion were created solely to stack smaller templates together and are now no longer necessary —Palffy 23:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, now obsolete. —dima /talk/ 23:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Phoenix 02:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Ukrainian Second League[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template is now obsolete, now that I have fixed the previous stacking problem that existed with all of the Ukrainian soccer templates. Now all Ukrainian soccer templates can stack up on one another using the standard fb start-fb end code that is used to stack templates in all other soccer articles (see 2006_World_Cup#External_links for instance). The three templates nominated for deletion were created solely to stack smaller templates together and are now no longer necessary —Palffy 23:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, now obsolete. —dima /talk/ 23:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Black American ethnicity[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, this is an article, not a template. Second, it's a cut and paste from African American#Who is African American?, with the phrase "Black American" substituted for "African American". (One subsection was deleted from African American since the cut and paste.) This "template"/article is not in use, and it probably never will be used. It should be deleted. — Malik Shabazz | Talk 21:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree with comments above. alanyst ^/talk/ 23:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 23:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —dima /talk/ 03:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:NorthAmNativeUnverified[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Based on a rejected proposed policy (WP:NATIVE), and seems to be based on a POV about which North American native groups' claims of tribal membership are legitimate. Where verifiability of sources is a concern, this template is redundant as there are plenty of "citation needed" templates already. — alanyst ^/talk/ 13:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No need to retain this, unless you want to make a non-category for all categories. The template for "recognized" tribe is fine, but making template for a non-group?? --Kebron 13:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If there is an unsupported claim that a tribe is Federally recognized, {{accuracy}} will do fine. This template is a cumbersome, and does nothing else, except cite a rejected policy as proposed. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As I said when discussing the policy, the United States government doesn't define who is Native American. -Amarkov moo! 22:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The entire thing is blatantly POV. If a claim is not verifiable, it's already covered by WP:V. Hence, this template is, at best, redundant and was crafted solely to dredge up all the same arguments that were defeated in the WP:NATIVE discussion. — Dave (Talk | contribs) 00:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Religious and ethnic edit wars[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, self-reference. Second, asserts that a given NPOV dispute is irreconcilable. Third, used on only one page (Sufism). I suggest deletion and replacement with usual POV template. — Stlemur 10:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the nominator, and suggest that we delete this.--Doc^g 11:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete too specific. Possible redirect to Template:Controversial? Hewinsj 13:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree with deletion. First: Almost template used on Wikipedia is self-referent. Second, the NPOV dispute in this instance is irreconcilable as demonstrated over a period of years. You may wish to look at the long history of that article and the related discussion pages. The Sufi page presents an extensive and irreconcilable RV war that is somewhat unique. The typical controversy and NPOV tags are not accurate in that context. The participants in the RV war demonstrate the positions that there is no neutral point of view that is not their own point of view. Third, the template has only been available for a two or three days, so its appearance on only one page is reasonable and not a reasonable basis for deletion. Requiring rapid deployment of a template on other articles as a basis for relevance would result in the deletion of most templates two days after their creation. Finally, if you are intent on deletion, I suggest you come forth with one that addresses the unique needs of those who have been working on that article and those who use it. A religious intolerance tag would be a good substitute if you have one, but I suspect that would not be PC. David Traver 18:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - any extra-encyclopedic article tag that doesn't have as its goal the improvement of the article is either a pointless self-reference or a disclaimer template. Template:Controversial provides a means to move along article development; I do not believe this one does. Gracenotes^T § 03:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox World's Tallest Building[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete, this is housekeeping stuff here. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 19:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned and deprecated — Crashintome4196 06:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No need to retain this, because it isn't used and shouldn't be. --ais523 10:16, 15 May 2007 (U T C)
Delete per nom. —MJCdetroit 11:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 23:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —dima /talk/ 03:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:European mathematicians[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

badly designed, the box overrides text, at least on my IE computer. More seriously, this appears only on category pages, and should be systematically replaced by Category:European mathematicians or Category:European mathematicians by nationality. If there are parallel templates, they should be added to this nomination. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I fixed up Paul's complaints, and a fair sampling of these links shows it playing fairly pretty where it sits now. Further, If a project wants a tag like this on it's patrol, I have no objection. This one just needed some HTML TLC. // FrankB 01:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's now readable; but this is still no reason to keep. This does a halfway job of what should be done by a category; and a project can watch all members of a category. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - should be in a category so can be watched but seen as one user seems to be the nominator and the biggest contributor to reach a concensus I have to agree to keep, even though it is weak. R_Orange 17:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.