Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 November 6

< November 5	November 7 >

November 6

Template:ActingUSPresidents

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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 01:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't make sense to have a navigational template with only two articles in it. New articles will be added to it on very rare occasions (perhaps twice a decade). — —Markles 12:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not needed as a navigational aid. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 01:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Need would be extremely rare and at that point the articles would most likely have section links devoted to the fact.SkierRMH 04:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete possibly the most useless template I have ever seen. It serves no navigational purpose to anyone anywhere. Nobody will ever need this template to get to the President's or Vice President's respective articles. Doczilla 05:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, useless. BD2412 T 02:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

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:National Treasure

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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 01:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template really only links to two articles: National Treasure and National Treasure 2. I recently redirected the Ben Gates article because it basically only repeated the whole plot of the first movie and the Riley article was AFD'd as well. The other red links probably shouldn't be created either because they would also fall into that issue of simply repeating the movie's plot info. I don't feel like a template is necessary for just two articles. — Axem Titanium 21:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not needed as a navigational aid. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 01:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The "franchise" is just two films as of now. "See also" would work just as well. SkierRMH 04:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my category nomination at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_November_6#Category:National_Treasure_series. Doczilla 05:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, though potentially it'll get remade if they end up doing the rumoured 5 films they plan on (and being a bruckheimer film, it could happen, but for now this is redundant). --linca linca 04:54, 10 November 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:WikiProjectBannerShell/Example Songs

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 speedy delete, db-author or db-test. Singu larity 07:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

redundant test copy of {{Songs}}. --PEJL 20:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete please. I created that when creating the banner-shell coding and never got around to deleting it. Sorry :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 20:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Template:WikiProjectBannerShell/Example WPBiography should be deleted for the same reasoning. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 20:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've amended the nomination with Template:WikiProjectBannerShell/Example WPBiography. --PEJL 20:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does this count as {{db-author}}? Axem Titanium 22:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and SatyrTN. Second template is redundant with {{WPBiography}}. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 01:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note - marked as db-test with a reference to this discussion. SkierRMH 04:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per template creator. Doczilla 05:12, 7 November 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:Prophets, salaf and caliphs

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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 01:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete duplicate topics to Template:Islam, overcrowding of Islamic templates, bad formatting. — ~atif ^Talk 16:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

further, the topics are haywire, unrelated to each other ~atif ^Talk 16:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Also practically unused. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 01:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete easily subsumed into Template:Islam with no info. loss. SkierRMH 04:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep not a duplicate, one is general, the other is indepth regarding personalities. --Striver - talk 18:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, made redundant by the presence of several templates already containing this or similar presentation. ITAQALLAH 19:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Yahel Guhan 03:53, 13 November 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:Hadouken!

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 to keep. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 01:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we don't need this template as it has a terrible layout, the artist is not very notable and the it contains links to pages that are non-exsistent and not needed. — Thundermaster367 11:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (but have someone work on the colours!) The band article itself doesn't appear to have been "speedied", "prodded", or "AfD'd" as of yet; a couple of the other articles have, and are still in existence. If it's the notability issue for them, best take that to AfD first. The template is used correctly on the articles that I scanned through. SkierRMH 04:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but even though its colours appear to have been amended, it needs some work getting details clarified (members surnames, the list of songs needs to be converted into a discography article, if it's really essential to have it, otherwise that ought to be included in the artist page itself). But yeah, keep while the artist's article and the others are still about. --linca linca 04:57, 10 November 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:Mariowiki

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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 01:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Page tfd'd before, the result was keep. Now it's been almost a month and it hasn't been used on any mainspace articles and the original contributor User:Dummmmmmy has been blocked for a user name-vio an blocked again as User:Arceus_fan for vandalism and 3rr. Thedjatclubrock :) ^(T/C) 19:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Here is the previous TfD. Major reason was that the template at that time was 24 hours old and hadn't had time to be used. It's still unused. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 02:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there's nothing wrong with the layout and it would serve its purpose if people knew about it (i.e. on a gamer's wikiproject of some kind) and as it's not "advertised" as a cleanup tag, how're people to know it's able to be used? It's not obsolete and though it's not used, maintenance tags don't need to be in use to be useful. --linca linca 05:02, 10 November 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:NormanAnatomy

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. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 01:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Has been used to flood medical articles with external links to self-published site with no editorial oversight that does not meet WP:Verify or WP:RELY. By existing in the template space, it has the appearance of acceptability and even validation by Wikipedia as a whole.. Collectonian 17:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Wesley P. Norman, PhD, Anatomy, is a very reliable source. Most of the uses of the template are on anatomy pages I've created, so I can attest to the paucity of quality diagrams available to illustrate these concepts. In most cases, these diagrams are more accurate and clear than anything else available online. --Arcadian 00:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arcadian, your link shows that Dr. Norman was given something called the Golden Apple Award by Georgetown University in 1980. How does that make him a reliable source? Per WP:RS, a self-published source may be reliable if the author is "an established expert... whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications" (though even that is discouraged). Has Dr. Norman been so published? --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 02:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Dr. Norman's website does not appear to be a reliable source (see my comment above). However, it does appear to be an acceptable external link ("Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article"). Would be willing to reconsider my !vote if Collectonian can argue that this desription does not apply to Dr. Norman. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 02:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it provides a unique resource that can't be integrated into the article. Its self-published and there seems to be nothing that establishes him as an expert in the field and I could find no evidence that he is published. He is a retired professor and from the intro to the site, it appears that even he would agree it is not intended for this use, but it more of a collection of study notes and as a simple anatomy review. Collectonian 02:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline doesn't say it must be "unique" to be an acceptable EL, just "neutral and accurate". I see no indication that it isn't, and clearly some people find it useful. Calling it spam implies that someone is benefiting financially, and I see no indication of that, either. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 15:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The links are not "spammy" - no ads and nothing is being sold - they are just informative. Website intro says it is for those "interested in learning a little about human anatomy, as a review of previous anatomy courses or for anyone else who might find the lessons helpful", which sounds to me like anyone who might use Wikipedia. BD2412 T 02:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Weak delete, per previous !vote on {{NNDB}}. Although I disagree with the reasoning there, we should be consistent. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per {{tl|NNDB]], since the consensus was to delete that. It's not really spammy, but it's just kind of lazy to keep something like this. --linca linca 04:59, 10 November 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:McGrawHillAnimation

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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 03:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:SPAM. This template inserted flash adverts into Wikipedia, code has been commented out and template is now defunct.. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 11:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Template was effectively gutted back in April. It is transcluded to a lot of pages, but has no effect on them. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 02:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It's now just a dead link on the article pages. SkierRMH 04:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete dead template. Doczilla 05:14, 7 November 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.