Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 October 23
| < October 22 | October 24 > |
|---|
October 23
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 page.
The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 02:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Characters in template do not meet WP:FICTION. Better to have a "see also" going to List of Fablehaven characters.. Fabrictramp 16:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Most of the links are red, doesn't provide significant navigation to the characters. -Domthedude001 23:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete the links that are not currently redlinked are all prodded for deletion per Fiction notability. SkierRMH 22:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- Update - they're all gone now. SkierRMH 04:49, 30 October 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.
- 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 under G2. Carlosguitar 19:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't know what use this template could have. Conrad.Irwin 12:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy delete CSD G2. JPG-GR 04:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy delete. It's a test. -Domthedude001 23:36, 24 October 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.
- 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 Keep per WP:SNOW and discuss changes in wording on the template's talk page. Non-admin closure. Hersfold (t/a/c) 18:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
The word "unqeustionably" is unreasonable and usually dishonest.
People are slapping this template onto pages whenever they find them verbatim the same as an external web page that is or may be subject to copyright.
Such verbatim copying is strong grounds for suspecting copyright violation. It may even be grounds for speedy deletion. Let's suppose so, for the time being. But it is NOT grounds for accusing people of "unquestionably" violating copyright, since the usual case is that the creator of the external web page is the person who created the Wikipedia article, or that in some other way there is permission.
It is unreasonable to expect Wikipedia's users to investigate these things so thoroughly that they can really establish "unquestionability". Therefore this template should not be used. Instead, they should use a template that says the page is likely to be a copyright infringement since it's the same as an external web page, and perhaps says it is therefore nominated for (speedy or otherwise?) deletion unless some assertion of a copyrght license is provided in the page. Michael Hardy 03:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy keep as necessary to the speedy deletion process. It appears the nominator primarily takes issue with the word "unquestionably". I'm not married to that word, and his objection to it does make sense, but let's have that discussion on a talk page in the ordinary course. -- But|seriously|folks 03:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep for similar reasons. I hand out my fair share of these on a daily basis, and while I do agree with the objection to the word "unquestionably", that can be remedied by a simple edit based on consensus rather than a full-on deletion. --jonny-mt(t)(c) 03:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy keep per Bsf. If you don't care for the wording, propose as such at the template's talk page. JPG-GR 04:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep: Perhaps remove the word "unqeustionably." We need something to speedily delete copyvios.Toddstreat1 06:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep and reword. But whatever the template says, admins are supposed to make sure that the claim is solid before deleting! --Itub 09:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep, not a WP:TFD issue. If you believe the wording should be changed, put a request to fix it. In most cases where the template would appear:
- The webpage copied Wikipedia, in which case that other site is probably violating copyright.
- The Wiki article is a cut-paste of the website by a third-party. This would be a copyright violation.
- The wiki article is a cut-paste of the website by it's author. While this isn't a copyright violation, it appears as such (and would probably be deleted as WP:OR anyway.)
- In any case, the final call is by the administrator reviewing the article, especially when the person creating the article content contests the copyvio with a {{hangon}} tag. --Sigma 7 11:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - Template used for AfD process. Wording changes should be discussed on the template's talk page; they are not grounds for a deletion. (Re Sigma 7): Well, perhaps OR, perhaps COI. Either way. Tuvok[T@lk/Improve me] 12:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy keep per Butseriously et al. Discuss wording changes on talk page. --Evb-wiki 14:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep necessary for the speedy deletion process. Issues with wording, application etc can be discussed elsewhere. Hut 8.5 15:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep. I have been Bold and replaced "is unquestionably" with "appears to be". The Criteria for speedy deletion does not require articles to be unquestionably. The criteria states: "Blatant copyright infringement. Text pages that meet all of the following: The material was copied from another website or other source (but consider the possibility that the other copy was obtained from Wikipedia—see Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks); There is no non-infringing content on either the page itself, or in the history, worth saving; The material was introduced at once by a single person; and There is no credible assertion of public domain, fair use, or a free license." B1atv 18:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Discussion closed. This would appear to fall neatly within the WP:SNOW criteria and everyone's pretty much saying the same thing - bring it to the talk page. Hersfold (t/a/c) 18:14, 23 October 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.
- 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 keep. User is substituting template when using it, not transcluding, so it's fine. Anyways, wrong venue. --- RockMFR 22:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Violating WP:SIG. Coastergeekperson04 03:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom as a WP:SIG violation. JPG-GR 04:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete yes, but not here. This belongs at WP:MfD. Tuvok[T@lk/Improve me] 11:57, 23 October 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.
- 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 moot. Already deleted. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 01:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Used in one article, which is itself tagged for speedy deletion. — Davidovic 09:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- The article in which was being used has now been deleted. Davidovic 09:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - Template seems to have no real purpose, doesn't follow naming conventions, and contains numerous contact details about someone (added by them?). Especially if it isn't used, get rid of it. Tuvok[T@lk/Improve me] 12:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. This editor has been spraying the same information all over Wikipedia in various places. Looks like nothing more than a combination of inexperience using MediaWiki, and a misguided notion of what Wikipedia is here for. ~Matticus TC 14:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as orphaned as as violating WP:NOT#MYSPACE (templates contents contain personal information on the editor). JPG-GR 01:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete,redundant and unused. -Domthedude001 23:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete per WP:SNOW --Thinboy00 talk/contribs 01:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - Unused and per nom. --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 15:37, 26 October 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.