Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 April 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 4

[edit]

Shanghai Metro Station Templates

[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 section.

The result of the debate was delete all WoohookittyWoohoo! 05:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC) Includes -[reply]

Template:Shanghai Metro stations end (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Shanghai Metro/Line 1 stations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Shanghai Metro/Line 2 stations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Shanghai Metro/Line 3 stations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Shanghai Metro/Line 4 stations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Shanghai Metro/Line 5 stations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Shanghai Metro/Line 6 stations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Shanghai Metro/Line 7 stations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Shanghai Metro/Line 8 stations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Shanghai Metro/Line 9 stations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The templates above were the old templates to display the list of stations for the Shanghai Metro. Now all of the stations are incorporated into Template:Shanghai Metro, so the old template is not necessary. Heights(Want to talk?) 23:51, 4 April 2008 (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 section.

The result of the debate was Delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 07:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:American Idol Runners-Up (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template:American Idol already includes runner-ups so DELETE this unnecessary template. — Aspects (talk) 22:45, 4 April 2008 (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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. IronGargoyle (talk) 16:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:YouTube celebrities (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I just think the term "YouTube celebrity" is down to nothing more than speculation. Buc (talk) 20:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Template is being used as a collective list of YouTube users who have a Wikipedia article. If the title is speculative, change the title. Why should it be deleted because you think something that can be edited and changed is speculative? CoolKid1993 (talk) 22:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. After thinking about it. I am now favor of deletion. The subject is bound to change so often that maintenance on the template and related article will be a challenge. Plus, many YouTube users have attempted (and will attempt) to add themselves. We should create an "Internet Celebrities" template and replace the current one.
  • Keep and fix This is still a rather new arena with some of the YouTube celebs crossing over into more mainstream media venues. The template could use some focusing but that's a reason to improve it not delete it. Banjeboi 22:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Reluctant keep. While I tend to think Wikipedia gives too much attention to this type of thing, as long as we have articles on these people, this is a useful template, linking them together by their most notable shared attribute. The only good reason to delete this is that a category might be better, and even then I don't think there's much harm in having both. Terraxos (talk) 03:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC) On second thoughts, Delete. There's no need for this template. It does not represent a well-defined group; it's questionable just who is a 'YouTube celebrity', and there's no link between any of these people beyond the fact they've appeared in YouTube videos. Since they're already linked by a category, I think this template is probably unhelpful and unnecessary. Terraxos (talk) 01:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per YooTuba. Template is completely excessive and totally unnecessary in this case. How about a template for List of Americans that would join the articles of every American? It would definitely be more maintainable that this pop fad list. +Hexagon1 (t) 04:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A navigation box should contain a well-defined set of articles. What is the need of navigating between this set of notable YouTube celebrities? What if the list of YouTube celebrities grows to 500 people; should all of them be included in the template? The chance that the template is going to change is high, and it means that this template must be added/removed to articles every time the list is changed. The list is fine, but the template should be deleted. --Kildor (talk) 19:40, 16 April 2008 (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 section.

The result of the debate was keep WoohookittyWoohoo! 05:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NFL team season lists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Isn't the the Category:National Football League teams seasons good enough for something like this?. Buc (talk) 19:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it allows people to navigate through lists of teams seasons better and i dont see the problem with having both Frank Anchor, (R-OH) (talk, contribs) 19:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Frank Anchor. Templates and categories coexist for many other groups of articles. NewYork483 (talk) 16:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've also noticed it isn't even most of the articles it links to. Buc (talk) 08:56, 8 April 2008 (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 section.

The result of the debate was delete WoohookittyWoohoo! 07:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:666Satanproj (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Wikipedia:WikiProject O-Parts Hunter has been deemed historical, per consensus from its parent project and lack of active participants. As such, its project template is no longer needed. It has already been removed from the few O-Parts Hunters articles.. Collectonian (talk) 06:48, 4 April 2008 (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 section.

The result of the debate was Keep Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Economy of Malaysia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Three reasons. 1. Rather than discuss about the economy, it seems to be mainly about government projects. 2. Topics which included like Pos Malaysia, PKFZ and MEPS is hardly about macroeconomics and it does not aid in bringing understanding the Malaysian economy. 3. No such template for other countries. __earth (Talk) 03:31, 4 April 2008 (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.