Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 September 23

< September 22	September 24 >

September 23

Template:CEC

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. IronGargoyle 00:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no article on Children's Entertainment Center and it is entirely unclear what the articles in this template have to do with one another besides the fact that they are places/businesses focused on children's playtime. Mike Dillon 23:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. There's no verifiable way to define what is and is not a "children's entertainment center". You know, McDonald's could theoretically be part of a list of such businesses. About half of McDonald's locations (at least in the U.S.) include a children's "Play Place", where the ball pit is sometimes as big as the one at Chuck E. Cheese's. szyslak 06:14, 24 September 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.

Template:Metalworking - Metalworking finishing and fastening

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. IronGargoyle 00:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

orphaned template. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unused and duplication of Template:Metalworking - Metalworking index. Carlosguitar 22:36, 23 September 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.

Template:The Elgar Sisters

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. IronGargoyle 00:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only transcluded upon one page. only 4 blue links, and subjects are already properly interlinked amongst themselves.. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 18:37, 23 September 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.

Template:Norse mythology

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 redirect. IronGargoyle 00:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, redundant with navbox {{Norse mythology}} (note the CamelCase). szyslak 08:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I did a little investigation, since this seemed like an unusual template. It was created by 16 desember 6 januari (talk · contribs), a possible sockpuppet whose brief (eight day) history of contributions back in January is curious, but probably not directly relevant. (In particular, there is no block or ban log.) The template itself was a simple cut-and-paste from an existing table at Norse mythology. The original table has since been restored to that article. I was mainly looking for two things: a reason to keep or a reason to speedy. I found neither. Xtifr _tälk 09:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but slap a redirect to the CamelCase template afterwards. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 07:32, 25 September 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.

Template:S-line/STL various

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. IronGargoyle 00:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These templates were used by the dark transclusion magic that generates the rail succession navboxes in articles in Category:S-train stations. They refer to service names that have been discontinued in the current (from today!) timetable. I have updated all the affected navboxes appropriately and checked that each of these templates are now unused. They are not useful for substing. Though having them around does little or no harm, I nominate them for deletion in the interests of general cleanliness. –Henning Makholm 02:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Valentinian ^{T / C} 07:45, 23 September 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.

Template:911tm

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 keep, although a merger is probably a good ultimate goal for this template. IronGargoyle 00:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another template exists, Template:911ct, that includes all the same information. Why are BOTH these templates being added to the same pages? It's redundant redundant. Timneu22 01:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. They're not quite the same. Not all TM people accept a conspiracy theory; some just say that the US Government knew of the attacks but didn't attempt to prevent them. That isn't covered in the CT articles or template. – Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, cover effectively the same topic, pointless to have both. Neil ム 11:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This template contains more articles than Template:911ct, and is better designed and better positioned. Corleonebrother 17:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Arthur Rubin and above. Smcafirst | Chat at 22:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note. The TfD notices was lost for about two hours between 17:53 and 20:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC) because of vandalism and partial corrections of that vandalism. – Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Along the lines of what Arthur Rubin mentioned above, many in the 9/11 Truth movement are in it because they reject the U.S. government's self-serving 9/11 conspiracy theory.--209.208.77.69 06:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note. Template has been proposed for deletion before, including a 18-6 vote (18 deletes) that wasn't considered a consensus. Timneu22 19:38, 30 September 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.

Template:WestMarin

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. IronGargoyle 01:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

might cross the line of WP:OR as no references or evidences showing that this place exists.. Chris! _{my talk} 02:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP[http://www.co.marin.ca.us/depts/HH/main/ems/documents/Annual%20Reports/Annual_Report_2000.pdf 9 West Marin is defined as Bolinas, Dillon Beach, Dogtown, Inverness, Marshall,

Muir Beach, Nicasio, Olema, Point Reyes, Point Reyes Seashore, Stinson Beach, Tomales and Lagunitas], this is directly from the county of marinCholga^talK! 02:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[1],[2],[3], [4],[5],[6],[7],[8],[9],[10],[11],[12],[13],[14],[15],[16],[17],[18], okay let's see community groups, a school (West Marin School), newspaper articles, a bus service called West Marin Stagecoach, and newspaper which mentions their West Marin news section, mentioned in San Francisco Chronicle, its mentioned in reports from the county, business websites, realty listings, a soccer leage West Marin Youth Soccer, a community radio station which says its a station for West Marin, i hope this is convincingCholga^talK! 03:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The template just links to the communitys and parks and lakes and geographical features of the areas thats all.Cholga^talK! 03:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a useful collection of articles on a geographically and culturally distinct area. Rracecarr 15:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't see any immediate need to delete, but I am curious why a more general Marin County template wouldn't serve better. If this were a category, I'd call it borderline overcategorization. Yes, West Marin is the side of the county with the ocean (and ocean-related tourist dollars), but even so, this seems overly narrow. WP is, after all, supposed to be an international encyclopedia. Xtifr _tälk 21:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment, Marin is pretty big so west marin topics might get scattered in a Marin County template, which does exist but disallows any non city to be in it. Sounds like i should create a Marin Template then =) if its too narrow maybe some of the topics should be removed, i originally created it simply to link the towns of west marin together, but thought it would be helpful to add Point Reyes, some of the geogrpahy and transportation too.Cholga^talK! 01:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Geography and transportation could possibly be in separate Marin-wide templates. Parks and visitor attractions likewise. Better to split the templates by topic than by sub-region, in general, I think. It might also be useful to coordinate your work with an appropriate Wikiproject. I believe there's a San Francisco Bay Area project. Also, check how such things are handled in other regions. Consistency is generally a good thing. Before setting off on your own, you should investigate what sorts of templates are used in the New York Area, or London or the South of France. Xtifr _tälk 06:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Well, I nominate it here citing concern over possible WP:OR violation. Even so, I must agree with the above user. A more general Marin County template is better than this one. The template for a non notable like this should be delete without questions. Chris! _{my talk} 21:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment what do you feel is possibily original research Chris? Did you check out the links i provided above?All the towns are sourced as being considered part of west marin and the other things are in and around the towns. For a non notable, what do you mean exactly? What is not notable?Cholga^talK! 01:39, 24 September 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.