Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 November 29

< November 28	November 30 >

November 29

Celtic league templates

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 (already substed) M a rtinp23 17:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Useless template cruft. --Bob 00:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete please. Misuse of templates. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 02:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Subst and delete, no use. Punkmorten 08:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What are those even supposed to do? It looks like you could get the same effect by just linking to articles... What are they for? ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)} 16:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Subst and Delete - each of these is just the name of the team linked to name of team (Rugby). This could be achieved by a disambig link, and doesn't need an entire template, let alone 11 of them. Appear to not be in use either. Orderinchaos78 15:08, 5 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:Ru Americas tier 3

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 this and all the relevant ones below. Thanks to an obscure argument about wikipedia, the discussion basically decended into obscurity, and with disucssion about expert editing which should have a place not here, but on user talk pages! M a rtinp23 22:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to Template:Rugby union in which is more complete --Bob 23:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm pretty sure all of these are deliberately incomplete, because they're limited to "tier 3" nations, whatever that means, rather than including every country on the continent. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 00:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They lack many of the countries in those areas that do have a history on playing rugby union, tier 1 and tier 2 nations deserve a template, but tier 3 don't as it consists of every other playing nation not included in tiers 1 and 2. --Bob 23:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but not every country has rugby union, does it? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 00:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Name me one that doesn't have someone within its borders who has played the game. Failing that, even if no rugby union is played within the borders of a country, the fact that they don't is in and by itself encylopaedic. --Bob 04:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would we have an article Rugby Union in Freedonia with the content "Rugby Union has never been played in Freedonia"? No, of course not. The template that you wish to replace it with offers links for every single country on the continent, without regards to whether there it's actually worth writing about rugby union in that country. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 05:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Freedonia doesn't exist, so of course we would have nothing on that fictional country, unless, of course there exists an inane fictional country where they play rugby union in some obscure novel. However, as Rugby union is played in every country in South America, is played in every country in Africa, every country in North America, almost every country in Europe, Asia and Oceania, then yes, we should link to these countries. Now, whether or not these countries have unions that are affiliated to the IRB is a different question, and a template already exists which address' this situation. The same with national sides. However, this is a template about rugby union being played at any level and in any form in the countries listed. As it exists in almost every country, the templates continent in topic are perfect for such a use. In those that it isn't played in, mentioning this fact is still encyclopaedic. --Bob 07:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Articles aren't here to express opinions of their writers.

Don't speculate. State the facts that are known and let the reader draw their own conclusions. We're an encyclopedia of facts, not opinions.

and most importantly:-

Wikipedia is for everything you don't care about and have never heard of. If it's verifiable, neutral, and not original research, why not?

--Bob 07:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is the relevance of anything you quoted? My point is that it wouldn't be appropriate to have an entire article for rugby union in certain countries because it doesn't have sufficient presence to write anything in such an article. Sure, you'd mention that it isn't played there, but you wouldn't use a whole article for it, just a sentence in another article. Using the topic in continent template series is specifically recommended against for topics that won't have articles for every country. Every country has Geography, every country has Government, not every country has Rugby Union. I doubt you can write verifiable articles on the basis that some pickup games of rugby have been played. We need only have articles about countries where the presence of rugby and enough information about it to write an article can be verified. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 08:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

and my opinion is that there is the information out ther to do such a thing. The British Army has played and/or introduced Rugby union into almost every country, thereby giving a history and context to every country. Take the blinkers off and you will see the relevance. Leave them on and you won't. Quite simple really. Just because you don't know about it personally doesn't make it non-notable. Name one country in South America that someone in the know won't be able to write an article about. Aside the fact that you are unable to cite anything about every countries rugby union history and current status and you would personally be unable to do write the articles, anything else that you object to? Just because you are unable to do it doesn't mean that the information doesn't exist or isn't worthy. To someone interested in the global spread of Rugby union it will be. --Bob 14:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're operating under the assumption that every country will have enough to write an article, I'm saying we shouldn't link the articles until we actually have the evidence that the articles can be written. I have no idea whether Tonga has enough rugby union to write an article, and I'd rather not be forced to keep a permanent redlink around to countries that can never have decent articles written. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ironically, I went and looked at tonga now and apparently it's the most popular sport on the island. :) However, looking at the bottom of Rugby union in Fiji, I see six bluelinks out of over two dozen countries. I'm pretty sure we're not going to get Rugby union in the Pitcairn Islands any time soon. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are commenting about a field that you have just admitted that you know nothing about. Anyone in the know would know that Rugby union in Tonga is huge. Indeed Rugby unions first international superstar came from that country - Jonah Lomu. Leaving it to third tier nations only leaves out many countries with a RU playing history that are not affiliated to the IRB (the governing body). Indeed, there are many countries out there with a lot of RU details that would be missed using 3rd tier only criteria. We need only look to Africa for examples. Why don't we leave it to people who know about RU to comment on what templates to use, and those that have no idea what they are talking about keep their comments to themselves. --Bob 00:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One of the main points of wikipedia is that you don't have to be an expert to edit, and even experts should cite sources. I'm still not convinced that we need an article for every single country. Looking at Football (soccer) around the world, many of the countries don't have "Football in X" articles, and that list is limited to countries that already have organized teams. Is there some source out there that can verify that rugby is present in every country in the world with enough information to write an article? I'm just trying not to get stuck with permanent redlinks here. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC) (forgot to sign)[reply]

Agreed with above person. Part of the good thing about Wikipedia is that people "in the know" don't get to overrule everyone else. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 01:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

People in the know are the ones creating the templates and the articles. The above user is against using the continent in topic templates due to the quantity of red links, however, all the templates listed here have many red links (Template:Ru Asia tier 3 as a case in point), so he must be for deleting these templates. Therefore, I don't know why he wants to argue, unless he or she just likes to be argue for its own sake. I don't, so thanks for playing. --Bob 01:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he is for deleting those templates. And people in the know creating them is irrelevant. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 01:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it isn't, as people who know jack shouldn't be creating articles on subjects that they know absolutely nothing about. --Bob 01:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how Wikipedia works. Information in the encyclopedia must be sourced to the point where someone with no prior knowledge can see that everything is true based on reliable sources, not just the say-so of other editors. WP:V doesn't say "Articles must have verifiable sources, unless you have prior knowledge, in which case you may include it with no sources." -Amarkov ^blah_edits 01:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is not the point made by the previous user. Try reading, then understanding, then commenting. --Bob 01:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not. But you countered his point by saying "Only people with prior knowledge get to contribute", and I'm explaining why that isn't true. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 01:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So everything must be sourced? good luck with that. You are wrong. Prior knowledge on a subject is required to make informed edits regarding the addition of any information. Sure, anyone can edit, but whether or not those edits are or detract from the article depends on the users knowledge. Users that know nothing and add rubbish detract from the project.

and what I stated was Why don't we leave it to people who know about RU to comment on what templates to use, and those that have no idea what they are talking about keep their comments to themselves. The user has obviously no clue regarding RU yet is pushing an illinformed POV. For instance, Tonga have made it to 4 WC's and will be at the next one in France. --Bob 02:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean, "good luck with that"? WP:V and WP:OR are Foundation-level policies, and they demand sources. And their POV is not ill-informed simply because you happen to be involved in the subject and disagree with it. If it is wrong, show how it is, don't just play the WP:IMANEXPERT card... -Amarkov ^blah_edits 02:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not everything is sourced, and not everything needs to be sourced. If one states, the sky is blue, do we need to source it? If we state that France is in Europe, do we need to source that? if we state coffee is a drink do we need to source it?

Did I state that every country has made 4 appearences? Didn't think so. --Bob 02:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's common knowledge that the sky is blue. It's common knowledge that coffee is a drink. Obviously, something only a specialist knows off-hand is not common knowledge. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 02:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just realized I'm not entirely sure what I'm discussing. I'll leave now. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 02:08, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that while these templates have redlinks, continent in topic templates will have far more redlinks, and not be editable to remove the redlinks. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Problem solved, for now.--Bob 20:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm hoping to close this debate - but the consensus is hidden behind a (largely irrlevant (at times)) argument. Could the members of the debate make their opinion more clear, as I'm trewating the consensus on this debate as relevant to the unclosed ones below. Thanks M a rtinp23 22:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC) Never mind M a rtinp23 22:30, 7 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:Geographic Location (8-way)

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 M a rtinp23 17:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This template looks ungainly, hideous & ridiculous. Also, it doesn't add to the article any links that shouldn't be in the text anyway, and finally, maps serve this purpose much better. I mean, just look at it: Georgia (country)#Neighbouring countries. Akanemoto has been pasting this template into just about every country article lately, now he is at it in all the Lithuanian provinces, and to forestall this pointlessness the template should be deleted. --Janneman 21:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a map in ASCII Art would be prettier and convey the information better than this template. I tried to tell Akanemoto not to add this to country articles, but he didn't listen. Country articles usually carry too many templates already, so we should remove clutter by showing information in appropriate ways only, not like this. Kusma (討論) 22:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Consider templatifying something like {{United States Labelled Map}}. The same can be applies to neighboring countries, provinces, cities, etc. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 22:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Bob 23:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The template isn't truly useful. TSO1D 01:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the redundant template. --MapLover 06:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete more harm than use. Agathoclea 09:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a helpful template. Consider replacing it with a map of the continent or region, similar or same as suggested above. --Drunk Monkey 01:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Source for problems. Amoruso 03:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As already mentioned, maps serve the same purpose better. LestatdeLioncourt ^talk 17:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For all above reasons Arnoutf 18:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redundant with existing maps. -Loren 19:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For all the above reasons. -- WGee 02:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It doesn't make the article look any prettier and it's hard to understand. Aaрон Кинни (t) 23:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Use maps. This template is an egregious ugly waste of article space. Hu 04:10, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Delete the template from countries, it's not necessary there, but the template is very usefull for more obscure geographuc entities, such as counties or electoral districts, or other regions that use shared maps. --Qyd 22:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not useful, in addition, now after the July war, everybody knows that Israel is Lebanon's neighborn
Retain The latest reports in North American educational journals show that children in schools at all levels are very weak in "international geography." Anything which can help them get better oriented is useful. Hmortar 02:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One of the issues raised here is the serious doubt whether this template does help at all Arnoutf 15:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete maps do a better job. —David618 ^t e 04:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If the only reason to keep it is to educate people, there are several dozen templates with locator boxes that look heaps better than this one. I'd point to Shire of Kalamunda as a working example of one such (in Australia). Conveys the same information with far less clutter. Orderinchaos78 15:03, 5 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:Editwar

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 Tone as a repost. Whisp e ring 00:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This template was previously deleted per this tfd. Deleted September 25, 2005, it was re-created November 22, 2005 and seems to have largely escaped notice since that time. It was recently used on an article undergoing an edit war, and has been removed. Other then that, it does not seem to be used anywhere. I think plenty of good reasons for deletion were mentioned in the first tfd, but to summarize;

It's redundant with several more specific templates
Provides no useful information to readers
Provides no useful information to editors for that matter
Can be inflammatory and make an edit war worse

Edit wars and editing disputes should be resolved using the dispute resolution process, it is inapproprite to simply slap a warning on an encyclopedia article and let the bombs fly. If it's that bad (and believe me, the article where this was recently used is) then the article should be protected, and the protection template specifically says that the protection is to allow the resolution of disputes. There is no need for this uninformative, unhelpful template. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)} 21:32, 29 November 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:Archive 05/11/2006

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 M a rtinp23 17:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And they have been since placed in the user's subpages. (User_talk:Duhman0009/Archive_11/05/2006) Delete. --humblefool® 04:54, 30 November 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:Sony BMG and 19E

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 M a rtinp23 17:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This template makes no sense. On the one hand it looks like an advertisement for American Idol-related albums, but the template title does not reflect that. In addition, I discovered the template in an Annie Lennox album article, and she has nothing to do with that show. Who deemed the albums in this template as "notable"? -- eo 20:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I put "notable" because not all of their albums have articles. It actually has nothing to do with Idol shows, only that the artists are with both Sony BMG and 19. Pink moon 1287 21:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

ok.... but I still don't understand why these few albums merit their own template. Even if it was something like "American Idol-related albums" it would make more sense (although I'd delete that too, but you get the idea). I can't imagine templates being made for specific record labels; articles would become a complete mess and the templates would be huge. - eo 21:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We don't have templates like this. What would the one for Atlantic Records look like? Wasted Time R 11:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It appears to be nothing more than an advertisement for Idol related recordings. Surely RCA has more notable albums than those listed. Maria202 16:46, 4 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:7break

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 M a rtinp23 17:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this was used on one of the spacewalk pages, but it is now obsolete and has no transclusions. ><RichardΩ6 12 ^UW 20:18, 29 November 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:MelbSuburbBox1/Water

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 M a rtinp23 17:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Superseded by {{Infobox Australian Place}}. No remaining transclusions or links. --Orderinchaos78 18:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support --TheJosh 11:11, 30 November 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:Album track

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 M a rtinp23 17:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unused succession template originally intended for albums. It was created in 2005; nothing uses it, hardly anything even links to it, and the talk page is dead quiet. --Mackensen (talk) 12:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redundant. Ter e nc e Ong 12:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, superseded by infobox track listings Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:21, 29 November 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:From Encyclopédie, ou Dictionnaire raisonné des sciences, des métiers et des arts, Denis Diderot (1713-1784) and Jean Le Rond d'Alembert

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 rename to {{1780 Encyclopédie}} M a rtinp23 19:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like the user got a bit confused with copyright tags and templates and ended up putting curly brackets around his source declaration, and then following the redlink to create this rater pointles template. I have substed it on the two images it was used, and added the pd-old tag to them. This "template" should be deleted. --Sherool (talk) 09:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Template: From Encyclope'die, ou Dictionnaire raisonne' des sciences, des me'tiers et des arts, Denis Diderot (1713-1784) and Jean Le Rond d'Alembert is historical and printed evidence dating all the way back to 1713 of the conjunction in the word Malletier. (malle –)and Tier (Finest manufactuer). example. would be Chocolate as to a Chocolatier. Without this template there would be no known reference of a trunk maker (Malletier) before 1713. http://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/malletier

Keep, but re-purpose and move. I think that this could--and should--serve a similar purpose to {{Template:1911}}, considering that both are old, public-domain encyclopedias. However, the full title is too long to be a good template name, and the template should probably be called {{Template:Encyclopédie}}, or {{Template:1780 Encyclopédie}} or {{Template:Diderot-d'Alembert Encyclopédie}}, especially considering that the Wikipedia article for said very old encyclopedia is at Encyclopédie. In short, good template, badly written. Even if the repurposing is not done, I believe that the template should be renamed; with that much French in it, it may run afoul of WP:UE. Lockesdonkey 22:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. I'll change my suggestion to rename based on the above. It serve no purpose when it just add the exact same text as it's title, but if given a shorter name I guess it could be used simmilar to {{1911}}. Any ideas what to call it {{1780 Encyclopédie}} might work, or maybe the "anglified" {{1780 Encyclopedia}} (how many of these could there be?). --Sherool (talk) 12:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as it is it serves no purpose as it saves no keystrocks, shorten the name and keep. --Bob 23:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename needs too be English and shorter, but is needed as source info. Agathoclea 18:51, 1 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:Impact Confections Products

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 M a rtinp23 19:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template for navigating the products of a candy company. Since most (if not all) of these products clearly fail WP:CORP, they have been redirected to the main article (which may fail WP:CORP as well), making the template superfluous (it would contain for the moment one bluelink, "Warheads", which is under discussion for redirecting as well). --Fram 08:22, 29 November 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:NotJudaism

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 per CSD:T1 -- Avi 05:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Inflammatory and divisive. Recommend speedy delete. --inigmatus 05:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unless someone can explain why we would use this template except to be divisive and to endorse a POV, I have to say delete. Heimstern Läufer 05:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete This is getting ridiculous!!! MetsFan76 05:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Is this even legit? If so, then any religion except Judaism can be used for this template? Even better, I'm not Jewish so maybe I can link it to my user page. MetsFan76 05:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Big time speedy delete per WP:NPOV. (→Netscott) 05:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Um... no; this isn't neutral and we're really opening up a can of worms. Someone's going to put it on the Cheese article or Ham article or something along those lines. If people want to find out whether a group or person or subject does not relate to Judaism (or any other faith), they should check out the appropriate article for that faith and then compare and contrast the ideas on their own. -- tariqabjotu 05:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Some organizations and movements attempt to misrepresent Judaism's basic beliefs, therefore in certain articles this would be fully justified. Case in point: Jews for Jesus. Why such a hurry to delete? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 05:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd go so far as to say this is the most qualified T1 candidate I've ever seen. (→Netscott) 05:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I cant believe this guy Humus wants to keep!!!! Anyone want to take a guess why? MetsFan76 05:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully, we're above assuming someone is approving this template because (s)he is Jewish. -- tariqabjotu 05:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep your prejudice to yourself please. See Jews for Jesus, a Christian group that pretends that Christianity and Judaism are the same. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 05:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Makes me think of the Neturei Karta and Zionism. (→Netscott) 05:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- - Humus, as an admin, it is your duty to prevent ridiculous templates like these from even being created. This is not about someone's prejudices. I am curious to know why this template was made in the first place. MetsFan76 05:56, 29 November 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:DOND USA Models

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 M a rtinp23 19:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Collection of mostly non-notable models. Has mostly redlinks, and has several links to articles that aren't notable. It seems a little absurd to have articles (and a template collecting) models who are on a television show with no speaking role. --Mikeblas 01:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doomed to be ever-full of redlinks Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 11:38, 7 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:Nsn

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 M a rtinp23 19:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, this was a hack used before Magic Words were commonplace. Depreciated. --humblefool® 00:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ...and now useless because we deleted all the templates it depended on at TfD. I was wondering what those were for! --ais523 10:28, 29 November 2006 (U T C)

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:Namespace prefix of associated page

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, and thanks to humblefool for replacing it :D M a rtinp23 19:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After tracking down and replacing this template's use of over 83,000 pages in the 'pedia (via various inclusions and substitutions), this depreciated page is finally ready to be deleted. --humblefool® 05:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, deprecated template, it's of no use anymore. Ter e nc e Ong 12:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Good work. --Bob 00:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 08:15, 1 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.