Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 December 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 28 December 30 >

December 29

[edit]

Template:Fundraising, etc.

[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 all. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 23:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Used on an apparent copy-and-paste transfer of foundation:Fundraising to Wikipedia:Fundraising. I've replaced the latter with a soft redirect; the templates in question wouldn't work anyway because they require raw HTML. I think these deletions should be uncontroversial but they don't seem to fall under any of WP:CSD. æ² ✆ 2006‑12‑29t17:45z

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 page.
[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. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 22:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC) Not in use, but it encourages editors to "assert" that the subject of an article is notable because they say so, rather than demonstrating why exactly that subject is notable. We want facts, not opinions; Bill Gates isn't notable because I say so, but because he founded Microsoft. Note that this template would technically be appropriate to every article, because articles that aren't asserted-as-notable tend to be speedily deletable. >Radiant< 13:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Agree with nomination. Assertions of notability need to in the article, elaborations can go on the talkpage, arguments for why this is notable can go in an AFD debate if it is necessary (and an ill-advised AFD nomination which gets shot down is not the end of the world). In no case do we need a template for this. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, "I think it's notable" is irrelevant; evidence counts, not what editors think. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Notability should be clearly asserted in the article and supported by citations. If there is doubt, then it probably deserves to go to AFD. The JPStalk to me 16:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If you think something is notable, you assert it well in the article and say so in any AfD. You don't round up a couple inclusionists (and for the articles on which you would actually need to use this, you'll need ones even more ardent than User:Badlydrawnjeff, which probably means people with a conflict of interest) and say "Ha ha, you can't AfD this now". -Amarkov blahedits 22:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Asserting that something is notable does not mean saying "this is notable". And in any case, if it is notable, then it should easily survive AfD, so there's no point in asking (begging? demanding?) for it not to be nominated. Aside: does it say something bad about me that the first thing I did when I saw this template was check "What Links Here" to see if that would reveal some articles that were ripe for an AfD? (But I'm not a deletionist, I swear. I'm a AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTDist.)  :) Xtifr tälk 01:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I'm a bit wary about anything official-looking that advises users to circumvent an official (and public, and open) debate on the say-so of a handful of editors. The template was created a month ago by someone who is presently involved in an edit war on Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith, which they are attempting to modify. Orderinchaos78 09:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because it circumvents the public review process regarding norability. The template is also an WP:ILIKEIT argument against deletion. --TheFarix (Talk) 12:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the way for editors to assert the notability of a subject is to prove it within the article text and references, not by saying so. AGF is important, but will can't simply take a couple of editors' word on it. Koweja 14:36, 31 December 2006 (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 page.

Template:HouseCharacter

[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. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 22:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:HouseCharacter (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Redundant with generic {{Infobox character}}. Cache load, consistency, etc. (cf. Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_December_28#Template:Thebillepisodes) --The JPStalk to me 12:39, 29 December 2006 (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 page.

Template:AustParlCatNotice

[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. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 22:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:AustParlCatNotice (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template was created by me to assist in reorganising categories for articles about Australian parliaments. Reorganisation was completed several months ago and template is no longer used or required. Adz|talk 10:31, 29 December 2006 (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 page.

Template:Nickelodeon programs

[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. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 22:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Nickelodeon programs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nickelodeon has had to many shows over the years and a template is not needed only an article and a category --Caldorwards4 03:16, 29 December 2006 (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 page.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_December_29&oldid=1138690478"