Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 December 9

< December 8	December 10 >

December 9

Template:Db-school

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. Alkivar, as long as schools have contested notability, they cannot fall under speedy deletion guidelines. Speedy deletions should be generally difficult to contest. Tito xd^(?!?) 20:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While it would be a good idea, this currently is not a speedy deletion criterion. --Stifle (talk) 23:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Yes, it is. A school is most certainly a group of people, and it could be considered a corporation, too. Thus, A7 applies. And for full disclosure, I am the author. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 01:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per MrDarcy. I was under the impression that it was only high schools considered inherently notable, which is why I explicitly made it not apply. But if it won't apply to any school... -Amarkov ^blah_edits 00:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: A school is not a group of people, it is a building or collection of buildings. Very few are corporations. Stifle (talk) 13:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seriously. No need for this extra template. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Let's not invent new csd criteria. --JJay 15:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
SuperMegaUltraWTFAreYouStupidKeep seriously wtf people... if you actually BOTHERED to look at the template you'd see the reasoning is CSD:A7 thats NOT A NEW CRITERIA!... all "votes" who claim this is a "new criteria" should be stricken from this commentary for being just flat out wrong. As for "extra template"... WP:NOT#PAPER learn it ... love it... ALKIVAR™ ☢ 22:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a little rude. I'm pretty sure everyone who's chimed in thus far is very aware of our deletion policy. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have to say that I don't see a school qualifying as "people, groups, companies (or) web content." As such, this is not a valid CSD criterion. I agree with Stifle that the idea is good, but this stuff has to be covered at WP:CSD first. There's an active proposal of a guideline on the notability of schools, in fact, and you can see there that many Wikipedians consider all schools inherently notable. | Mr. Darcy talk 00:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Really? I thought it was just high schools. In that case, I'm going to go tag it for speedy. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 00:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nn schools are not speedyable. Personally, I'm in agreement with those who feel that all schools are notable. Heck, if a little five-mile stretch of road gets its own article ... WP:PTEST and all that. Anyway, schools can't be speedied, so they don't need a tag. BigDT 04:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Author has requested deletion.--TBCΦtalk? 01:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy and Strong delete - and until we can get this all sorted out through WP:SCHOOLS, I'm not sure this fits under A7 (unless you call a school a "company" or "group"). But just as much because the author requested deletion. -Patstuart^talk|edits 17:47, 19 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:Speedrun articles external links

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. Tito xd^(?!?) 20:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned template consisting of external links only. I would have speedy deleted it, but apparently there is no criteria for this situation. -- ReyBrujo 15:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - link-spamming. —Mets501 (talk) 18:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's a reason that template is orphaned- why would any article ever need it? -- Kicking222 17:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious and quick delete- orphan, spam-magnet. -Patstuart^talk|edits 17:44, 19 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:Stones_Throw_Records

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 no consensus, but hopefully Xxplosive can work on fixing it up :) M a rtinp23 18:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huge template, rife with redlinks and redirects, for a minor U.S. record label. Mr. Darcy talk 03:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Yanksox 03:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Implied keep It is a big template, but it's convenient. It's also being worked on by myself. And Stones Throw is NOT a minor record label. Famous underground rappers like Madlib, J Dilla, MF Doom, Madvillain, and Peanut Butter Wolf are all signed to Stones Throw. Help finishing this template would be appreciated, and I'm working hard on it. I'd appreciate it if you could let me finish this template as it could be finished in a couple months.--Xxplosive 03:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Prune but keep, having every album isn't very useful, but having the rappers interlinked is. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 05:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE, Stones Throw's discography is too varied and still growing rapidly - thus, the template is a complicated eyesore to every page is appears on. Every page that has a mention of Stones Throw has a link to their wikipedia page, and usually to their website, which has an extensive, complete discography posted. MarcelloRubini 07:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What if the instrumentals were removed from the template? It would clear things up a bit. --Xxplosive 05:59, 17 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:FamilyTree_TimeSharingOS

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 deleted by User:MrDarcy. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template was created earlier by me for use on multiple pages; but after discussion, I replaced it with the more appropriate template template:FamilyTree_CP/CMS and article time-sharing system evolution. I created all of these pages recently, and have been their only user. I trust I am dealing with this in the correct way. Trevor Hanson 02:58, 9 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.