Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 January 23

< January 22	January 24 >

January 23

Template:Black days

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. нмŵוτн τ 20:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is the point to this? They're very loosely, if at all, connected. Delete as color cruft. DodgerOfZion (talk) 21:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. What... the... hell.... is this useful for?!?!? These topics are utterly unconnected, ranging between stock market crashes, natural disasters, riots, military reverses, economic collapses and the fall of governments. The only thing they share is the name "black ...". Hardly a good criterion for collection in a template such as. Colour cruft... what a brilliant way of describing it! Happy‑melon 21:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Stock market crashes, natural disasters, riots, military reverses, economic collapses and the fall of governments are hardly unconnected—they're all catastrophes of one kind or another. It seems to me that a reader is far more likely to navigate from Black Friday to Black Thursday than from Body shape to Technology, and yet no one is considering deleting Template:Human, which appears at the bottom of the former, and links to the latter. I suspect that few would object to See also: Black Thursday, at the bottom of the Black Friday page—Template:Black days simply bundles this up in a consistent, attractive way. Yes, it's colour, but I don't think it's cruft. —johndburger 22:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'd never use it, but I can see the purpose. If you go to Black Monday you may be interested to see that there are articles about Black Tuesday, Black Wednesday, etc.; you may have actually intended one of those other days and just not known the right day of the week, so it helps to disambiguate.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 22:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Useful. WAS 4.250 (talk) 11:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I found it useful. I think others will as well. Remember (talk) 14:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — per comments by Johndburger and Doug. -Mardus (talk) 02:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Consistently and appropriately ties in "unpleasant"/catastropic events (however "unconnected" they may appear to be) into one bundle. [[Briguy52748 (talk) 16:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)]][reply]
Keep as interesting and useful. "Black" is a term assigned to few disasters. The term is exclusive and the template is precise. --Czj (talk) 19:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- though I would like to point out that if Template:Black days is kept, then for consistency we should bring back Template:Bloody days which was deleted (16 October 2007). Btyner (talk) 17:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found it useful for linking between the days, as I just did. That said, if the articles are deleted (which is a possibility), then the template would be useless. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 06:17, 27 January 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.

Template:Natali Del Conte

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. нмŵוτн τ 20:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Belonged to AfDd article Natali Del Conte, see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Natali_Del_Conte.. Jfire (talk) 06:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as orphaned, and as a rather egregious example of a linkfarm. Maralia (talk) 06:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - An excellent example of Vanispamcruftisment!! Happy‑melon 12:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CSD:G6 (Housekeeping)--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 22:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as linkfarm for a deleted article. JPG-GR (talk) 02:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per comments above. I'd figure that Natali can start her own wiki (or just a webpage) listing her various work and publications. -Mardus (talk) 02:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Cheers. _{Trance addict} 23:57, 26 January 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.