Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 January 13

< January 12	January 14 >

January 13 edit

Template:ReaderFeedback 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 Delete. Superm401 - Talk 09:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Self-referential template entirely repetitive with article talk pages thrown into various high profile articles without any discussion. As per the WP:ASR policy, it would mess up forks, assumes reader is viewing article on a website, etc. It's category should be deleted to, and the two existing comments can be moved to talk pages. Savidan 02:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC) As long as it's not used in the article space, I have no objection to its use in the user and project spaces (where WP:ASR doesn't apply). Savidan 18:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. If I am reading an encyclopedia, I do not want to be confronted with an "Evaluate this article!" link. I want information. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 02:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Jo e I 05:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nomination Gaius Cornelius 10:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The template is intended to increase the feedback for high-quality articles such as FA and A-class. This could help to see candidates for reevaluation earlier and keep improving FA articles per requests as they tend to be very stagnant until losing FA in a FAR again. The ten selected articles with this template are kept on a list and are closely monitored. The results of this test would have been evaluated so that the discussion about it is based on information rather than assumptions. Wandalstouring 12:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The template has been removed from all articles and the comments will be transfered to the talk pages. It has been modified and is intended to be further modified for use on non-article pages. Are there any reasons for deletion left?Wandalstouring 15:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just from a cursory glance, this template or an evolution of it could have the benefit of bringing in the comments/suggestions of many readers who are too intimidated to edit or who aren't familiar with the talk page system. This incarnation might not be right, but I wouldn't just delete it out of hand. Joshdboz 15:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Every page has a "Talk" tab sitting up there in front of the reader. I don't see the mission of this. Feedback on article quality? Feedback on the topic? A Fray-type forum? I don't think that being bold should extend to new missions for Wikipedia without extensive discussion first as to the purposes and nature of that extension. Robert A.West (Talk) 17:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per original nomination. On the article pages, it looks unneccesary and ugly, particularly for the content we want to show as our best work. Talk pages already fill the mission of this template. Bob talk 23:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It creates unnecessary pages, regardless of namespace. "Talk" will do just fine. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 09:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but only in talk pages. --Ysangkok 21:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all. Xiner (talk, email) 00:40, 20 January 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 page.

Template:References-small 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 Delete. Superm401 - Talk 09:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template has been replaced by {{Reflist}}. --Frodet 23:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to {{Reflist}} and delete. --Frodet 23:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note that the nomination is broken (the link on the template itself does not point to this page.) Also the main WP:TFD page does not contain todays subpage. Is that supposed to be done by a bot? Regarding the templates, I have no preference regarding either of them as the result is (looks) the same. Tinus 00:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Always exciting to find out that a template you created is actually used by people. Even if you only find that out as it's about to be deleted. Probably best to just replace it with a redirect. Stevage 06:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to {{reflist}} as duplicate template. Alternately, tag with {{tdeprecated|References-small|reflist}}. Picaroon 19:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
merge/delete, fork. >Radiant< 10:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question: no opinion on the template, but is it usual that a deletion notice is visible on pages that use the template? See e.g. the pretty high-profile Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2007-01-08/2006 in review. Fram 13:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, that's standard. How else would people who use the template but don't have it watched know that it was up for deletion? Picaroon 00:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/delete. Let a bot run through all the articles that use the template replacing it with reflist. Meta-Wiki should also be consulted as to replace it with Reflist in the edit menu, under the "Wiki markup" (where all the special characters are placed for your convenience). — Tutmosis 02:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
redirect as per Picaroon, but still have a bot replace it as per Tutmosis. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:05, 16 January 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 page.

Template:NoSourcesDanger 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 speedy delete, we don't do disclaimer templates. >Radiant< 10:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is in effect a disclaimer template, warning that the article contains directions that may be dangerous, and that are unsourced. If the directions are actually wrong, they should be removed. If not, they can be removed under Wikipedia is not an instruction manual. In any event, Wikipedia:No disclaimer templates should govern. --Robert A.West (Talk) 20:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Also raises issues as an inherently POV template. --ElKevbo 21:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep First, please see template_Talk:NoSourcesDanger for the creation rationale. The template is not inherently POV, it's the usage that might make it POV. That arguement is analagous to "Guns don't kill people, people kill people". There's no reason to remove a tool just because some people might misuse it. If it's misused it should be removed from the article, not the entire template. I also disagree with the original nom about deleting unsourced information. If unsourced information were deleted, Wikipedia would be a shell and contain nothing. As I said in my creation rationale, I believe there are many instances of important information on Wikipedia that are unsourced but should still remain with a notice. I am a wiki-inclusionist and everything I do supports including as much in Wikipedia as possible. It is not a disclaimer. Disclaimers include a denial of liability and this does not. It is just a helpful warning that should be used sparingly and appropriately and should be removed from articles immediately by editors if it is mis-used in a way that supports a POV. Additionally wikipedia:No disclaimer templates is just a guideline, not policy. It doesn't govern anything.--Jeff 21:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's just as possible for something which is sourced to give dangerous instructions, so what's the point? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 22:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - Was thinking of nominating this myself the other day and got distracted. Savidan 02:44, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, clear violation of WP:NDT. Xtifr _tälk 13:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NDT is a guideline, not a policy. Violation of it isn't a reason for deleting this template. --Jeff 19:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken. Violating a guideline is very much a reason for deletion. Things are deleted every day for violating guidelines. A guideline is not an absolute reason for deletion, i.e. policy can override, and consensus can even override (a circumstance that might suggest that the guideline no longer is), but as long as the guideline is accepted and reflects consensus, it guides. And in this case, guides us to deletion. Xtifr _tälk 22:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The template is OK but I don't understand how an articles information could be dangerous just because it does not cite its references and/or sources. Possible delete Tellyaddict 16:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In cases of pharmaceuticals in which dosages for recreational use is mentioned. If uncited wiki information is used by persons in the pursuit of recreational drug use, it stands to reason that a stern warning about the information is a public service. The same applies to explosive information about ingredient mixture levels. Flash powder used for fireworks is an example where incorrect uncited information may be dangerous. If it works as a compromise, I'd change the templates wording to "This pharmaceutical or explosives article contains unsourced information.." thereby restricting the class of articles in which it is appropriate to use.--Jeff 19:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, if the information is cited, it is dangerous, but if cited (and otherwise unchanged), it ceases to be dangerous? I don't think so. Robert A.West (Talk) 21:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The content of a given section or article may both lack sources and be dangerous; however, I don't see how the two could possibly be related. Despite what your high-school English teachers may have told you, not citing sources never killed anybody as far as I know. M412k 03:27, 15 January 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 page.

Template:adjacent geography 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 Delete. Superm401 - Talk 09:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The template is not used anywhere. --Fred Bradstadt 17:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Jo e I 17:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unused (useless) Arjun 17:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I created it. Please don't call it "useless". That's entirely rude. It was used and isn't now. Bastiq▼e ^demandez 18:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see what use it could have had before it was orphaned; there is no description for it on the template page. –Llama man^{sign here} 21:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination (unused template). —S .D. ¿п? 04:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since it isn't used anywhere anyway... Iloveparis 00:05, 16 January 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 page.

Template:Nndb name 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 Keep Superm401 - Talk 10:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Site is unencyclopedic (lack of quality scholarship and reliable sources -- basically a Wikipedia Wannabe with nothing better than what our articles already have), does not meet standards of Wikipedia:External links policy, some dedicated spammers have added the link to hundreds of sites for no justification. Same spammers have used the existence of the template as some sort of supposed indication of endorsement of the site's quality. Template should be removed completely. --DreamGuy 17:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The person above that put this up for vote cited "dedicated spammers." This is false. The links are added by many individuals, by editors of the articles, one at a time. Nobody has been systematically adding them. Quatloo 10:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One other note, this template was previously up for deletion. (Result was Keep) Quatloo 10:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:DreamGuy is not telling the truth. Jerkcity 16:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a link to the previous template deletion discussion? --skew-t 23:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP The instances of this template that I've seen were added by the typical editors of that article. DreamGuy has provided no evidence to suggest otherwise, merely an assertion of linkspam. Romanpoet 23:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP!...it's interesting, it's topical, and gives an perspective not covered by other outlets. --emerson7 | Talk 17:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Haven't seen it used in a really useful manner yet. Jeff Greco 19:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not seem to provide any unique information, and is not a reliable source. --skew-t 22:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Interestingness is not a criterion for linkspamming. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 22:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was no spamming, DreamGuy lied for some reason. Jerkcity 16:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While NNDB may be an interesting external link for some articles, it can be linked to selectively without a special template. The linkspamming problem is enough reason to delete. Robert A.West (Talk) 22:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It offers nothing totally unique and if it needs to be link to, it can be done so without a template. <3 Clamster 23:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Jo e I 05:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete! Nareklm 03:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm cleaning up some nobel spam and running into this a lot. Let me expand: the site's home page states:

“

NNDB is an intelligence aggregator that tracks the activities of people we have determined to be noteworthy, both living and dead. Superficially, it seems much like a "Who's Who" where a noted person's curriculum vitae is available (the usual information such as date of birth, a biography, and other essential facts.)

”

This is in no way suggestive of a reliable source; it's just someone republishing whatever anonymous and plagiarized content they can get their hands on. Dicklyon 09:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement is an absolute libel. NNDB does not and has never plagiarized. Text submissions from outside individuals have never been incorporated into its content, nor has any writing to which it has not obtained the rights to been included. Wikipedia, on the other hand, is not only rife with plagiarism, but it has itself plagiarized content from NNDB multiple times. Poledancer 05:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, maybe I owe you or someone an apology. Can you provide a source that will illuminate us about the truth about NNDB? Dicklyon 06:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If this template is deleted, people will add the links anyway. No "linkspamming" issue has ever existed. Likewise, if this template is deleted, the corresponding IMDB template should also be deleted on identical grounds. Quatloo 10:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If you feel the IMDB template should be deleted for similar reasons, you are at liberty to so propose. Robert A.West (Talk) 14:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Robert A West. Irk _(talk) 15:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Jerkcity 16:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The site is small and not open, but it does a good job of reminding newer users what objectivity means: "Just the facts, ma'am". I am not asserting that it is perfect — it even got Jimbo's birthday off by one day for a while there — but it provides a counterbalance to the rough-and-tumble disputes that sometimes occur here at W. True, it does let go with a snide comment now and then, such as suggesting that Catharine MacKinnon's career was "misguided", but overall it is quality facts and all of the humour is shoved over on the rotten.com web site. It even remains objective about Hitler and terrorists and such. Really, is this more of an ego problem on W's part? Sort of like all the Kafkaesque sequella after Jimmy edited his own biography (thus betraying his own insecurities about providing Larry Sanger with appropriate attribution about a certain unnamed project of yore) and many "social" Wikipedians coming along and hairspliting about autobiographies? Wikipedians: please introspect and reflect and ask yourselves why you are so uncomfortable with NNDB being so much smaller but having a reliability reputation that is comparable to W. I assert that the desire to eliminate references to NNDB is an ego problem typical of narcissistic teenagers and 20-somethings who care too much about a social "community" and not enough about hard-hitting objective journalism typical of, say, legal scholars. -- 71.141.232.220 17:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC) — 71.141.232.220 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep. 66.111.62.174 17:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC) — 66.111.62.174 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep. This is obviously somebody trying to do an end-run around reasonable processes. What he can't get in the front way, he'll get in the back way. Site is notable, template just codifies what is already being done, and claims about linkspamming are unsubstantiated. Xihr 20:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. See other comments. --Ysangkok 21:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Hundreds of articles use this template! Please leave it be. Mrf 21:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. That's no reason to keep it. CloudNine 22:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This template is used in a huge number of articles, and is endlessly useful for my research! If you examine how it is used it is blatantly obvious that this is not an attempt at spamming. Pay attention to these things before you blithely recommend them for deletion, people. How many times does this need to be saved (See above as to prior votes to Keep.). Lu3ke 23:09, 15 January 2007. (UTC) — Lu3ke (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep. Since NNDB can be a valid and often valuable EL, especially for our subpar bios, there is no reason to delete the template. --JJay 23:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's no good reason to delete this template. Iloveparis 00:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I've added this template to my own articles before, just as I've added "IMDB", "Find-a-Grave" and other templates. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 06:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since you've used it, perhaps you can share WHY. What sort of reliable information does nndb contain that is not suitable for inclusion directly in wikipedia? Dicklyon 06:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For one thing, it tends to keep an awful lot of detail that is usually elided here on Wikipedia. It will list every single one of a long list of awards and accomplishments, for example, whereas here on Wikipedia we tend to list the highlights and link to a site such as this to fill in the details. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 18:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, I've been to nndb several times. I find it more accurate than IMDb 99.9% of the time, and the IMDb template is still here for whatever reason. phoenix 15:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we better recommend IMDb for removal then. But why will nobody tell us why NNDB is thought to be accurate? The info in it is essentially anonymous. The guidelines of WP:EL pretty much rule it out as acceptable external link. Probably the best thing to do would be to edit the template to return NULL, so that all those inappropriate links just go away. If they're appropriate, why won't anyone site a reason or rationale for why? Dicklyon 16:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stop assigning people busywork, these people do not work for you. Centuryduster 17:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is perfectly acceptable to ask people to give reasonos instead of just saying "You're wrong!" -Amarkov ^blah_edits 22:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's sort of funny, or pathetic, that an invitation for someone to provide backup for their position, which I don't even agree with, would be labeled "assigning busywork". I was trying to facilitate some discussion; I think NNDB is pretty vacuous and incompatible with the quidelines of WP:EL, and I'm trying to get someone, anyone, to explain why I'm wrong. Dicklyon 23:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've found this template to be very useful and it provides information that other sources do not. It is a reliable source. Fernandobouregard 18:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: a handy and useful template for keeping links in a uniform format. —Phil | Talk 18:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep -- At least they have an editorial vetting process--"As of December 2006, NNDB contains more than 50,000 entries encompassing over 20,000 profiles of prominent individuals. Readers may suggest additions or corrections which are later vetted by an NNDB staff member."-- this link should be useful in a lot of pages. // FrankB 22:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, though be more judicious about including links. Should only be added as an external link in cases where it provides some information our article doesn't already have---if it's just got a city of birth, birth date, and occupation like some of the bare-bones pages have, it shouldn't be added as a gratuitous external link. But in some cases it's a legitimate link. --Delirium 00:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - I go on that site. It has good info that's hard to find out. --Horcado 04:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete The pages that have external NNDB links don't need a template to server as more or less just a banner advertizement. The Wikipedia needs to come up with a policy for templates to 3rd party sites or most pages will end up with piles of template advertisments.Jeff Carr 04:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Cricket02 08:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete --PhantomS 17:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep a often cited webpage with data checked by that site making them libelly responsible for the claims. PatriotBible 19:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per PatriotBible.--Kross ^Talk 20:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Website has reasonable level of accuracy, notability and informativeness. I know of no infallible website, and honestly, most sites don't list their sources (unless its an interview). Also, I would say it is easily more reliable than IMDB. If the template is used to refer to the corresponding page on the website, it doesn't qualify as spam anyway.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 20:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I spot checked about a dozen entries and all that I found were people I would consider to be notable. A couple were names I didn't recognize, but a quick google checked showed that they were as described and would qualify as notable on wikipedia. Seems to be well researched to me. Wrs1864 00:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep many bios are have links to this site. If you eliminated the template, it would 1) make a mess and 2) many of the articles that have links to NNDB would end up being "fixed" to link to it manually. The template ensures uniformity. --rogerd 05:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Others have summed up the reasons better than I could. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 07:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes NNDB has a few problems with accuracy, we do as well. We should double check our sources sometimes. I will review my refs when I have used them in the past. Luigibob 07:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep good for citing birth/death and basic data. Widespread use not recommended, but it is still very useful. Danski14 18:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. This TFD is not a question of whether NNDB is a reliable source or not. Until an official decision on whether or not it is reliable, I see no valid reasons to delete this. This is going the same way the myspace one did. Everyone is arguing about whether its a reliable source. As it was said there, the TFD doesn't determine whether or not a site is reliable. Using the template keeps all link uniform and neat. Your only argument is that the site is unreliable, that may be true, but thats not for me to decide. Unless you provide another reason to delete this theres really no reason to unless NNDB is ruled officially as unreliable. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 23:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I pretty much that that's the issue. What is the proper forum in which to debate or decide it? Dicklyon 00:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Surely the right place is not a call to delete its template. The only remotely appropriate forum would be a vote for deletion of the NNDB article itself, but that's already been tried by the perpetual complainers, and it failed. According to Wikipedia's own policies, the consensus is that NNDB is notable under WP:NOTE and an appropriate source under WP:EL, so get over it. Xihr 00:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The notability of an article about the site has nothing to do with whether it is useful for external links to it's pages, just as there are justifiably articles about MySpace and LiveJournal, but no need to link to pages on those sites from hundreds of Wikipedia pages. --skew-t 10:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's why I invoked WP:EL, which is a guideline. Xihr 20:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 00:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But the nom was proved false...Surely you've noticed that? - Concerned Anonny
Keep as a useful template, assuming we find NNDB an acceptable external link. As far as that goes, if it does indeed have editorial oversight (even if less than perfect), is often used for research (it's cited by American Press Insitute for fact-checking), and is clearly very notable (Alexa current ~6000 [better than en:Wikiquote!], discussed in mainstream press), it would seem to be a useful resource, especially if it's more accurate than IMDb, which many seem to feel. One problem: it doesn't seem to be available as I write this, so it's hard to evaluate its content management. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:35, 20 January 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 page.

Template:IrishCoins 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 Delete Superm401 - Talk 10:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Superseded by {{Irish currency and coinage}}. Please discuss with IrishNotes together. ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 16:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Jo e I 17:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per below. Arjun 18:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Routine cleanup of superseded template. Robert A.West (Talk) 22:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This template appears to be quite informative and makes it easier for readers to navigate around that subject. (Dont wan't to sound different but can't help my opinion). Tellyaddict 16:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But, this template and the one below have been merged into {{Irish currency and coinage}}, so we aren't losing any content. Robert A.West (Talk) 18:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Routine cleanup of superseded template. -- Blorg 23:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 00:42, 20 January 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 page.

Template:IrishNotes 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 Delete. Superm401 - Talk 10:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Superseded by {{Irish currency and coinage}} ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 16:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Jo e I 17:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Useless, superseded. Arjun 18:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Routine cleanup of superseded template. Robert A.West (Talk) 22:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Routine cleanup of superseded template as per Robert above. -- Blorg 23:37, 17 January 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 page.

Template:Development 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 Delete Superm401 - Talk 10:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was part of a rejected proposal from August 2006. Keeping it around risks users placing it inappropriately on stub pages instead of {{expand}} or similar - I just saw this happen. --Zetawoof^(ζ) 08:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Part of a rejected proposal, and creates confusion with articles currently under development by their original author. I've removed it from the three articles it was found on per misuse. Michaelas10 (Talk) 11:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it serves no distinct purpose. -/- Warren 15:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No point in having a template for something which isn't used. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 16:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Jo e I 17:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no use of having something that isn't used. Arjun 17:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even if it were used and the category did exist, it would be much simpler and less confusing to just put the cat on the page normally. –Llama man^{sign here} 21:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - rejected proposal, unused. Patstuart^talk|edits 02:15, 18 January 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 page.