Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 January 31

< January 30	February 1 >

January 31

Premier Development League old division stadiums

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 discussion was Delete. It is, however, suggestive that these navigational boxes will never acquire enough articles to be valid navigational tools :D. Happy‑melon 20:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PDL MW Stadiums

Template:PDL MW Stadiums (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

the division no longer exists; see USL Premier Development League — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otav347 (talk • contribs)

Template:PDL NE Stadiums

Template:PDL NE Stadiums (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

the division no longer exists; see USL Premier Development League — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otav347 (talk • contribs)

Comment Just because something doesn't exist anymore doesn't mean that it's no longer a valid template. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:36, 1 February 2009 (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:Infobox Marco Lopez

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 discussion was G2 Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Marco Lopez (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not used and doesn't appear useful as a template. Seems to be an attempt to replace {{Infobox Governor}} –OrangeDog (talk • edits) 02:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; not useful, possibly a test page. Terraxos (talk) 19:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I believe the template creator may have been trying to update the infobox on the Marco Lopez page because Lopez was appointed to a new position, but created this in error. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:04, 1 February 2009 (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 section.

The result of the discussion was Delete. Happy‑melon 20:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:911tm (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Primary reason for nominating this template, is because there is already a template covering the exact same topic (Template:911ct). This template is simply superfluous. I also think a sidebar template this long can be disruptive in smaller articles (see Jeff Boss). So I prefer we keep the other one. Peephole (talk) 01:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Timneu22 (talk) 16:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --rogerd (talk) 20:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete...this pretty useless template.--MONGO 08:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete too long, the other template is superior. Hut 8.5 19:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep or merge/speedy close because of canvassing Nominator canvassed over ten people about this deletion nomination.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10], too my knowledge all of them share Peepholes POV: Delete all alternative theories from wikipedia. The nominator's reason is a classic, Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions WP:OTHERSTUFF, "The nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on what other articles do or do not exist." The templates are different, and server different purposes, not all editors want a large template on the bottom of their page. The "template is too long" argument can easily be taken care of in the article, by employing a collapsible bar, per, WP:INTROTODELETE "deletion should not be used as a way to improve an article, or a reaction to a bad article." An AfD is the wrong place to fix the template. The template can easily be merged, without the drama of a AfD, as per the policy WP:PRESERVE: Whatever you do, endeavour to preserve information. Instead of removing, (merge)... Ikip (talk) 03:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment from nom: Oh please, I went through the old AfD's and left a message at persons who advocated to keep the template (User:Warren [11], user:fabartus [12], user:striver [13]) and if I recall correctly, user:bov and user:rootology were very much into the whole conspiracy stuff. A little bit of good faith, please. Also, I moved all information from the 911tm template to the 911ct template so nothing will be lost, all in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. Finally, WP:OTHERSTUFF was never meant to prevent us from deleting duplicate articles/templates.--Peephole (talk) 05:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment to Ikip: I have no idea who Peephole is, or if I share their point of view on this topic. It is also fairly standard practice on Wikipedia to inform editors who have previously been interested in a topic, to inform them that new discussion on the topic is taking place. Warren -talk- 03:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing administrator I took less than a minute and made this template a collapsible template, so the "too long" argument is now moot. Ikip (talk) 03:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - We don't need two templates to list these individuals. Also, per WP:BLP, templates are not great for this sort of thing, since it's more difficult to provide citations for verifiability and explain nuances of a person's involvement with the 9/11 truth movement. --Aude (talk) 16:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; I think {{911ct}} will handle this just fine. I am generally of the belief that vertical navboxes should be short and to the point (like the one I did for {{Windows Vista}}), and the purpose of every link should be readily understood. Vertical navboxes take away horizontal reading space from the user; if we're going to use them at all, make it good! Warren -talk- 03:52, 9 February 2009 (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.