Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 May 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 1 May 3 >

May 2

[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 speedy delete per CSD criterion G7. Harryboyles 06:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Video game list (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I created this list initially as a video game version of the TV episode list template. Since creating it I've found that there's no need for the template and it also encourages using non-free images without critical analysis. I am in the process of removing it from the 2 minor articles it was used in. — ●BillPP (talk|contribs) 21:41, 2 May 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 // Pilotguy hold short 00:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Images coming from the Smithsonian Institution are not inherently ok according to our Non-free content criteria. This could be a source-tag, but not a licensing tag.. Abu badali (talk) 18:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

would there be a way to seperate the images taken by the staff of the smithsonian which seem to be fair use and the images taken by non staff which they may or may not hold the copyright on? Nowimnthing 01:51, 12 May 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. WoohookittyWoohoo! 06:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:H2o (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

orphaned – should be deleted as per Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_April_6#Template:H2O since {{H2O}} was an identical template — Crashintome4196 18:02, 2 May 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. WoohookittyWoohoo! 06:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redundant to browse boxes and categories provided on the pages the template would be used for. Precedent set by deletion of other similar templates for other state highway systems. —Scott5114 06:41, 2 May 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. WoohookittyWoohoo! 06:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NJ-AtlanticCountyFreeholders (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

All related articles have been deleted for notability concerns. Template is (save for a relic page in user space) orphaned. — Caknuck 06:56, 2 May 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. WoohookittyWoohoo! 05:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The template needs to go for several reasons. 1) The template is obscure. Is is about "theocracy" or "religion in governement"? The latter is quite a broad topic that can be interpreted quite openly. 2) The template doesn't serve a meaningful purpose. It is a random collection of entries ranging from safely theocratic to some that are quite controversial. It doesn't help the reader in any way. 3) Finally not one entry in the template is based on a reliable source calling the idea "theocratic" or an example of "religion in government", except the obvious ones.— Bless sins 23:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Quoting this post by Bless sins: "Theocracy can be defined as "government by or subject to religious institutions" (from Theocracy). In that case I don't see a contradiction between "Theocracy" or "Religion in government". Only after his attempts to list Israel as a theocracy failed, the same user decided that the template is not useful. ←Humus sapiens ну? 00:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • True those were my intial views. Later, however, I saw the confusion created. Your bad faith (that this proposal has something to do with Israel) is disgusting.Bless sins 20:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The template was set up by User:Patchouli, who was banned for abusive editing and sockpuppetry. From its inception the template's primary purpose has been to push POV. Since Patchouli's banishment it's morphed into a capture the flag game between Team Islam and Team Zion. More importantly, the template is overcategorization on steroids. It's close to worthless for the average user and has no legitimate raison d'etre. A micro-subject like this needs no template. Majoreditor 00:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. After reading the debate on the template talk page, this seems to be the most logical route to take. --myselfalso 03:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, a particularly useless template, and something of a trolling-magnet. Hornplease 07:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless it can specifically stated what this template is about and what not, and what kind of links should be included on it. Now it's just confusing! C mon 07:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It seems like another one of User:Patchouli useless POV pushing templates.--Gerash77 20:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Like many templates, this one is hardly useful. The POV-pushing and other disputes that come with it make it quite undesirable, so as with User:Patchouli it is time to say "goodbye." The Behnam 04:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nearly entirely for Gerash77's reasoning. --Phoenix 22:33, 9 May 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 DeleteMETS501 (talk) 20:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template lists the two managers of a three year old non-affiliated minor league baseball team. Only one of the managers has an article linked. The template is not helpful or noteworthy (encyclopaedic). Michael Greiner 23:56, 2 May 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.