Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 July 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

July 3

[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 already deleted. >Radiant< 12:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Miss Teen USA 2007 delegates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Complete redlink template due to discussions such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holly Shively and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canden Jackson. hbdragon88 20:30, 3 July 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.
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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 03:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Institutes Of Management Technology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The template is extremely specific to a particular organization. It was being used in only one article - Institute of Management Technology. The other two articles (about branches of the same organization) that were linked to from this template have been redirected to the aforementioned parent article. The template is not transcluded anywhere now, so can be safely deleted. Thanks, Max - You were saying? 18:42, 3 July 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.
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 request by its author. --ais523 17:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Template:Bahnstreckenabschnitt Stuttgart Hbf–Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Several: 1. Overly long name 2. Isn't in English 3. "Where will it be used, and what is it specifically?" are questions that blare in my mind. Suggested action - Deletion, or at least translation if it ends up being useful/important. — Anonymous DissidentTalk 14:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep it. The whole point of a stretch of railtrack is the places that it goes to. Stuttgart and Bad Cannstadt are both place names that resonate deeply with anyone interested in the origins of the petrol driven motor car and therefore definitely places that merit significant coverage in an anglophone work of reference. Presumably someone has or shortly will provide(d) an entry on this stretch of line which also appears to interface in many respects with other parts of the network in a part of the world where rail travel is very much seen as part of the future (which our stateside friends who still enjoy 'gas' at way under five dollars a gallon may find somewhat unfathomable). The template could presumably also be adapted for other stretches of line where needed. However, the image will for anglophones be usefully enhanced when someone gets round to translating the bits that are not place names into English Regards Charles01 20:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I imported this from German wikipedia to make the line diagram in Filsbahn work (which still needs some translation), but I have pasted the code directly into the table so the template is no longer necessary. Germans like long compound nouns names and apparently file names.--Grahamec 01:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is that a {{db-author}} there? if it is, please paste that on the template. Anonymous DissidentTalk 01:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Grahamec 03:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Great. thanks. Anonymous DissidentTalk 03:14, 4 July 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.
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. Mike Peel 02:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused template for a long dead project. — WoohookittyWoohoo! 09:55, 3 July 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.
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 deletion. There is no way this template could ever be stable. Even with a link to an entire list of actions labelled as state terrorism, there would be endless discussions (read:edit warring) over which events are important enough to mention in the body of the template. This is not appropriate for a navbox, and as such, should go. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 03:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:State terrorism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The template is not helpful or encyclopedic and serves no benefit. Only used in two articles. — MONGO 07:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Query: Why is not helpful or encyclopedic? .V. [Talk|Email] 07:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • MONGO you deleted the entries for this template[1] Along with ultramarine [2][3][4] Tbeatty [5][6][7], and Tom Harrison [8]. This is really sad--delete the article to the point that it has no content, then put it up for deletion for the reason that it has no content. I am going to request this template be kept speedy keep. I see the four of you, who all have very stong matching POVs deleting a lot of work which doesn't match your own pet POV, but I dont see you contributing much at all.216.60.70.61 23:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have 300 article starts to your, what 25 edits total...get a username if you expect recognition here. --MONGO 05:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Way to dodge your bad behavior. I removed your personal attack. I will report you to WP:ANI if you violate WP:NPA again. I am not questioning your additions in other articles, I am questioning your deletions in this article, we are talking about this template. 216.60.70.152 23:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mongo, please don't bite the newbies... hostility isn't appropriate, and even if they don't have a username, they can still be a worthwhile contributor. .V. [Talk|Email] 21:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What other articles might be included? If it's just those two, it seems like 'See also' is the place to put the one the reader is not already viewing. Tom Harrison Talk 19:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that this editor deleted several of the links on this template. See above. 216.60.70.61 23:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per Evil Spartan (there is a number of articles related to state terrorism, see for some samples List of acts labelled as state terrorism sorted by state) Tazmaniacs 19:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Presumptuous title. List is vacuous. WP:NOT It is all synthesis and original research. The list should he created by a reliable source since it is such a conentious issue. For example, the EU has list of terrorist organizations and that list should exist on Wikipedia, but Wikipedia should not be creating its own lists of state terrorist as this template is trying to do. The "Wikipedia List of State Terrorists" is inherently original research and synthesis of published material and is not allowed by policy. --Tbeatty 08:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Calling violence by the state terrorism is begging the question, as all actions by the state are politically motivated. Notion is thus superfluous. A state terrorism article on Wikipedia shall have to be more metaphysical than anyhting else, but this template here is really adding nothing. Intangible2.0 20:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I fail to see why this is not encyclopedic. Anyway, the reason for the template not currently containing links is that some users deleted them prior to the TFD. The template in its earlier, non-emptied form seemed to be acceptable. .V. [Talk|Email] 22:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Why use a template with a few articles? The suggestion to link within the page is correct as the See also section would eventually be added by someone. The way these types of articles go lately, anything goes. The template adds nothing. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 23:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep nominator and POV friends deleted all of the links in this template, then put this template up for deletion because there were no links in the template. Because of this dishonest behavior, will ask for this article to be speedy kept. 216.60.70.61 23:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC) 216.60.70.61 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
So it's you who added Idi Amin to the template under the Easteregg title 'Uganda'? Even though the word 'terrorism' never occurs in Idi Amin's biography? How does that work? Tom Harrison Talk 00:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong and Speedy keep per existing arguments... Ranma9617 01:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not encyclopedic is not a rationale. The editors who want this deleted have complained that it is biased to have an article about State Terrorism and the US and not other countries. As a result other editors have suggested expanding the number of articles to other countries (there's currently another about Sri Lanka) and I see this template as a means to encourage new articles by forming an overarching category/template for the two that already exist.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Completely specious and spurious. --72.65.92.47 02:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. POV, too easy to abuse, difficult to verify its application, disruption magnet. - Crockspot 14:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This is clear counter template action.(links have just been readded) There's no POV on this template, nor in the article's links, many of these are pretty well sourced. A discussion just above about wheter STATE TERRORISM exists or not is OFF TOPIC, this page is for discussing on the template itself.--Andersmusician VOTE 00:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm not sure of the encyclopedic value of this. State terrorism is a pretty vague blanket term, and it's POV depending on which side of the argument you're on. Moreover, I think the inclusion of article regarding different countries it implies a link between the terrorism in different places that doesn't in fact exist. In short, it's creating a topic heading that doesn't really exist - a better idea would be a cat, or a subheading in a Terrorism template, because there can be a relationship positied on a more genral level that way. MSJapan 00:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then we nominate Template:Christianity for deletion, no. All articles can be POV depending the side from its written, thats no deletion argum. Also this type of "terrorism" shouldn't be confused with the stereotipic def, needs its own separated template --Andersmusician VOTE 01:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Harrison Talk 20:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep There is no logical reason to delete this template. It is useful and joins together existing articles on a common theme. This nom is POV motivated, as with the dozens of other, failed AfDs started recently. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 20:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since most of the articles recently added don't mention state terrorism, what theme would that be? Tom Harrison Talk 20:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The template is linking common articles. For instance the Cuban Flight bombing does not mention it is considered state terrorism on the part of the US, however it has been cited as state terrorism. The articles on gas chambers do not have to mention the word executions for it to be on a template of methods of execution. The fact that you come here from the article attempt to place article standards on a template shows how misguided your points are. Here is an easy to explain comparison, Osama bin Laden's article does not cite him as a terrorist, would you then state any template relating to terrorism with his inclusion should also be deleted? --SixOfDiamonds 21:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We are telling the reader in the template that these are articles about state terrorism. Where should be the citations to support that? They are not in the underlying articles, and the underlying articles do not in general even address state terrorism. Tom Harrison Talk 21:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
the citations are doing so, mr. harrison, grammar is not a criteria for inclusion nor deletion--Andersmusician VOTE 23:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What citations are doing so? There are none in the template (I don't see how there could be) and there are none in the articles supporting any connection to state terrorism - not surprising since the linked articles are not about state terrorism. Tom Harrison Talk 00:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Once the protection is removed I can add sources for Luis Posada/CIA intereference in Cuba as well as Iraq, I have some nice sources including a nobel laureate in literature and obviously the government that was invaded and overthrown. As for Guatemala I have a source citing that as state terrorism as well. Once its unprotected you can see it grow. Unfortunatly due to some people blanking the template I cannot add related articles, and due to edit warring and blanking of sections on the US article I cannot add more sources there either. --74.73.16.230 00:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Allegations of state terrorism in Guatemala is unprotected and empty. Go for it. Tom Harrison Talk 00:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The disruption is in the larding of the template with unrelated articles. Tom Harrison Talk 21:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On a special note: Most of the argument against the template is actually a argument against articles "State terrorism". While it might be true that some of the article might not belong under state terrorism, it does not mean that the template must be deleted. Keep in mind that even if the template is deleted the articles remain. So please go ahead with AFD and not XFD. If this template is deleted then people will just add all these to the "see also" section. Which will then result in edit warring. Watchdogb 13:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Watchdogb delete articles not meeting standards but not all Harlowraman 22:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve. No proper rationale shown for deletion, and no obvious reason why it is "not helpful or encyclopedic and serves no benefit". On the contrary, we should seek to improve and broaden our coverage of state terrorism. As far as I can see this template can or could aid that effort, by linking various articles. Of course the articles linked to will need to be carefully monitored. Attempts to blank the content of the template during the discussion have not been helpful to the discussion. --John 23:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete obvious anti-american POV template--SefringleTalk 01:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletions. SefringleTalk 01:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Speedy DELETE This is just going to be a lighning rod for more edit wars. I am not even sure that all of the articles it points to are valid.WacoJacko 03:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 03:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete inherently POV and OR. --rogerd 06:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep So much of terrorism in the world is state sponsored. Syria and Iran supporting Hezbollah and Party of God in Lebanon (at least until recently) come to mind as worthwhile avenues of explorations for new articles. France bombed the GreenPeace ship near Australia some years ago; the PLO back in the 70s was perpetrating acts of terrorism and being financed by several countries; Operation Condor; Plus the existing articles can and should be improved. Instead of trying to delete material in this template how about contributing along these or other lines? --NYCJosh 06:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Whehter it will be a valid template I don't know, but under the current highly POV-driven contributions we should at least give it a chance to grow. Deleting everything to prevent it from becoming WP-worthy defeats the purpose of the deletion process.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 06:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Accusations of terrorism, state and otherwise, are thrown around like confetti these days, and there is no generally-trusted person or body for Wikipedia to treat as authoritative (especially not the UN, to anticipate a probable objection; no-one with any sense trusts the UN). So this list-within-a-template is indeed "inherently POV and OR", as previous !voters have said: it can only represent the OR and POV of the Wikipedians who edit(-war over) it. Keeping it would contradict core Wikipedia policies. It has to go. CWC 09:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CWC, according to your reasoning, we should also delete the WP article on "Terrorism". For that matter, should we remove ALL mentions of the word "terrorism" on WP, unless they are in direct quotes?--NYCJosh 22:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, not at all. I didn't write good enough—sorry. In an article we can (and should) make it clear who is making the accusation of terrorism, report what other authorities have said about the accusation, etc, etc. In a template like this, we rate accusations of terrorism as credible or not credible, by including or excluding articles. It's the same problem as controversial categories for living people (see WP:BLP#Categories).
I see that Tom Harrison has made the same argument.
This template still has to go. CWC 04:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that the concept isn't there; it's that its application is controversial if not downright tendentious. Mangoe 17:20, 10 July 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.
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 A7 (no assertion of notability). Although the page is in the template namespace, it is actually a recreation of a deleted article. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 17:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Student (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Unnecessary template. It is basically an nn bio stub masquarading as a template. The article it was created for was speedily deleted. — Flyguy649talk contribs 02:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Looks to me like it should be a very speedy delete. It's not a template, but a vanity infobox about an individual NN college student named Brian Spittler. --orlady 17:08, 3 July 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.
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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 03:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ship box HMCS Victoria (SSK 876) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Only used in one article. The template should just be substed and then deleted. —Remember the dot (talk) 02:33, 3 July 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.
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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 03:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ship box HMCS Windsor (SSK 877) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Only used in one article. The template should just be substed and then deleted. —Remember the dot (talk) 02:33, 3 July 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.
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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 03:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ship box HMCS Corner Brook (SSK 878) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Only used in one article. The template should just be substed and then deleted. —Remember the dot (talk) 02:33, 3 July 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.
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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 03:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ship box HMCS Chicoutimi (SSK 879) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Only used in one article. The template should just be substed and then deleted. —Remember the dot (talk) 02:33, 3 July 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.
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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 03:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Notre Dame Fighting Irish football teams (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template was replaced by {{NotreDameFootballSeasons}} and is unneeded now. No longer links anywhere. — Phydend 01:23, 3 July 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.
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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 03:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Municipality of British Columbia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete. This template was replaced by {{Infobox Settlement}} so that all Settlements in Canada use the same template. MJCdetroit 00:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I created this template 2 years ago because the standard city infobox was confusing and horrible-looking. This new settlement infobox is better, except for the population and area sections and the drab lack of colour. But everything changes here, so it is ok. But, I'd rather not delete this template because that will remove the infobox from the article histories. --maclean 03:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • And it was much better than {{Canadian Town}} indeed. Still, I don't think it should be kept for historical reasons, I'd say delete. --Qyd 04:16, 3 July 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.
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 G2. --ais523 13:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Template:Zh-templates-demo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I'm not sure what the purpose of this template is, but it is unused and seems to have been created as a test. If someone more knowledgeable in templates than I could confirm that it is indeed a test, it would become subject to deletion per CSD G2. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 00:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete - Close enough to test for me. There's no documentation, no indication of usage (no links), and was only edited twice (first time was creation) on the same day over two years ago. It might be a language template, but we have one of those for Chinese already. Creator took a two-year Wikibreak, so it's unlikely that the purpose behind this template will ever be ascertained. MSJapan 00:35, 5 July 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.