Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 February 2

< February 1	February 3 >

February 2

Template:Microsoft celeb

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! 05:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't really serve any purpose. We have cats to collect together names like this. Also "key figures" is POV. Who decided these four are the "key figures", where did they cite their sources? --AlistairMcMillan 18:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep These navigation templates nake it much easier for readers to find related pages, then categories do. One has to be either very curious or a long time reader of WP, to open a category. Each person in the template links to a WikiPedia article, which makes it clear what their contribution has been. If this isn't enough, the references could be added either as [http:/...] refs or on the talk page. Lentower 02:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So out of the thousands (millions?) of past and present Microsoft employees, how did we come to the conclusion that these four were the "key figures"? AlistairMcMillan 02:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- We already have over a hundred people listed in the Microsoft Employee cat. How did the editors of "Template:Microsoft celeb" decide on these four? Why don't Konzen or Silverberg or Cutler or Maritz make the grade? AlistairMcMillan 02:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I've already proposed a standard for inclusion in this template, and that it has been meet for the four people currently in the template. That their Wikipeida article shows they were a key figure in Microsoft's history. That's quite different from being a Microsoft Employee or being in the Microsoft Employee category. If you feel that anyone else meets this standard, you should add them to this template, or enhance their Wikipedia articles with credible sources, until you can add them to this template. Lentower 18:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Who defines what a "key figure" is? -Amark moo! 15:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A navigation template needs more than four links to be useful. Also, notice that this template is just a glorified "See also"... and since the article on any one of those people undoubtedly links to the other three already, a "See also" section would be superfluous. Therefore, this template is totally a bad idea. The Apple and FOSS templates are also glorified "See also"s, but their individual articles are unlikely to link to all the other people in the text already. --Quuxplusone 06:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Amarkov's got the right idea here. -/- Warren 21:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, very subjective, and indeed a glorified "see also". — coelacan talk — 03:27, 9 February 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 page.

Template:Editprotected External link for correspondence chess: http://www.atlanticgames.net

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:Mike Rosoft. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 17:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessary. -SpuriousQ (talk) 18:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NRV, Dfrg.msc 23:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks like it was created by accident (completely unplausible title). --cesarb 15:13, 4 February 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 page.

Template:Victoria Cross Reference

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! 05:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan, ex link is defunct. --Peta 02:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not relevant and the author of the article could write that anyway.Telly addict 16:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NRV, Dfrg.msc 23:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- seems to have been superceded by {{Template:Wikiproject VC migration}}? --DeLarge 14:17, 9 February 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 page.