Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2009 November 11

< November 10	November 12 >

November 11

Putting Croydon First

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. JPG-GR (talk) 03:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Putting Croydon First - The People's Choice/meta/shortname (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Sorry if this is the wrong place to put this.

A user Croydon First has set up this template (Template:Putting Croydon First - The People's Choice/meta/shortname for ]]Election Box inclusion. Even though (as I have made clear in a recent edit, the party do not exist as an official registered party (see here http://registers.electoralcommission.org.uk/regulatory-issues/regpoliticalparties.cfm?ec=%7Bts%20%272009%2D11%2D11%2011%3A09%3A38%27%7D )

As this seems to be a case of self-promotion on the part of the user can this template be deleted?

doktorb _words^deeds 11:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even if this is a legitimate party, it is not necessary to create a template that just places the name of the party. It can be typed in plain text. (Note: You are in the right place. I added the {{Tfdlinks}} above, took the quote marks out of the section header, and placed the notification of the nomination on the template.) --RL0919 (talk) 19:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unused and entirely unnecessary. Robofish (talk) 01:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unused. GlassCobra 01:12, 17 November 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:Timeline Scottish FM

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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 14:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Timeline Scottish FM (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned, not useful in template format, and the current First Minister's surname is misspelled anyway. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I fixed the FM's name just in case, but there doesn't seem to be any reason to keep this template since it is unused and seemingly abandoned, with no talk and no edits since 2008. --RL0919 (talk) 19:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unused, and frankly not very useful. Robofish (talk) 01:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. GlassCobra 01:13, 17 November 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:AmericanSpreeShootings2009

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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 14:46, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:AmericanSpreeShootings2009 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Crap. — RockMFR 01:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, stunning nomination though. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 01:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This sort of novel synthesis is, indeed, crap. — Gavia immer (talk) 01:57, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No reason given for deletion. In any case it is not "synthesis" (which implies a POV), rather a form of aggregation to make navigation of related articles easier. Green Cardamom (talk) 02:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The assertion that these are related - apart from temporal coincidence and the fact that they all received media notice - is a novel synthesis. — Gavia immer (talk) 02:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no use for navigation, use categories or see also. A complex bundle of conditions designed to include "people that are like Hasan in my mind just now" -i.e. people who have recently shot a lot of people and were reported by the US media - so we include spree killers to get the guy from Orlando and alleged because non of them have been convicted yet - indeed even charged. Also by including "alleged" we open the way for soapboxing - let someone allege that W J Reynolds is a mass murderer and it goes in the navbox? Rich Farmbrough, 03:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - The relation is tangential and subjective, and as I will show, NOTNEWS also applies. These people have nothing in common save that they are alleged to have killed a lot of people in a given timeframe. I think, therefore, the context becomes one of news or current events, and WP:NOTNEWS applies. These people are only notable for committing a transcendentally noteworthy crime, and are not in themselves historically notable; the template simply reduces all of them to news-like trivia. MSJapan (talk) 06:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Totally unnecessary. A new category, if needed, should be enough. If they want to use a template for just this, then go back further than 2009 under "mass murders" or something.
Strong delete or replace. The thought of nominating this template for XfD had crossed my mind the very first time I saw it. If we're even going to have a template on this subject at all, then it should certainly be about the attacks rather than the attackers. — C M B J 12:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Whether a killing is a "spree shooting" or not is largely subjective, so I don't see the value in having a list of "alleged" spree shooters, including the non-convicted Nidal Hasan of the Fort Worth shooting. It's easy to overlook the word "alleged," and in fact I did that when I mistakenly removed Hasan's name from the template and the template from the article on Hasan. I don't see the point of this list.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hits tabloidification of WP, and misuses the term "spree" which according to the sources I found suggest that multiple locations are required for the term. Thus not even proper synthesis. Collect (talk) 18:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Nominator didn't deign to give a remotely valid rationale for deletion. In fact, it seems that he couldn't spare the time to type a sentence greater than one word explaining his views on the subject. There is no reason to waste editors' time with such lazily-constructed nominations. — goethean ॐ 20:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The nomination statement is a bit ... I'll say "minimalist" to be polite. However, several subsequent editors have given cogent reasons for deletion, so speedy keep is probably out of the question. --RL0919 (talk) 20:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - What logical connection between these articles is there, besides they all shot a bunch of people in the same year? That's not a strong enough connection to warrant a nav box template. --Blargh29 (talk) 20:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - really bad idea for a template. This seems to me like glorification of these spree killers; that's obviously not how it was intended, but that's how it comes off to me. We don't need this. Robofish (talk) 01:18, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to list of mass murderers and spree killers by number of victims. The title at the top of the template ("List of Americans...") demonstrates what this template wants to be anyway. These articles do not belong in a navbox any more than all the articles in a given category belong in a navbox.
On the bright side, at least this wasn't created as a succession box...--Father Goose (talk) 20:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if these are ever shown to be related in any fashion, an article or list might be appropriate. Barring that, this is synthesis. Maralia (talk) 06:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Ok, but seriously, "spree shooting" is broadly used. Provides little navigational purpose. A category would work better for this.--Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail ^Review 16:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MSJapan; tangential, subjective, NOTNEWS. GlassCobra 00:39, 17 November 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.