Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 July 15

< July 14	July 16 >

July 15 edit

Template:Dunepedia 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. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 06:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template is being used to insert spam adverts into multiple artcles. Speedy delete - IPSOS (talk) 14:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a spam link wrapped in a template is still a spam link. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 15:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I hardly think that a link to a free site with valuable information constitutes spam. Were it a link that was entirely unrelated to the topic on the page on which the template has been placed, then it could be deleted. 86.142.227.7 16:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The site doesn't meet WP:EL even without the template (it has only 11 users and is full of Google ads designed to make the site owner money). No other site gets its own template. This is promotion and intended to drive traffic to the site, pure and simple. We call that spamming here, even if the site is "free". The template also falsely implies that Dunepedia is a sister project of Wikipedia - it isn't. IPSOS (talk) 22:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unused and contents barely legible anyway. Spammy. MER-C 14:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SPAM. Dunepedia is not related to Wikipedia besides the fact that it is a wiki, and the template mainly serves for promotion purposes. Ali ^(t)_(c) 16:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above. Rehevkor 16:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --theSpectator _talk 05:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:CSD G11. JPG-GR 04:55, 22 July 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:Italian Football Project 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. Mike Peel 20:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template of Closed WikiProject (now a task force), now share Template with WikiProject Football. — Matthew_hk t c 10:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It's not used in any articles. Shalom ^Hello 01:31, 16 July 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:Gold Coast opentask 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. Mike Peel 20:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be unused, possibly obsoleted by something in this project. — But|seriously|folks 07:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unused. Note also the related TFD for Template:WPGoldCoast. Shalom ^Hello 01:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WikiProject Gold Coast seems to be defunct as of now. Ali ^(t)_(c) 16:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am making attempts to revive WikiProject Gold Coast at the moment, however agree that this template is not required. Nicko (Talk•Contribs) 06:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at this time this is not needed by the project. Also see {{GoldCoastQLDtasks}} as a replacement for this. Nicko (Talk•Contribs) 06:42, 17 July 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:FBI Wanted 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 snowball delete. Daniel 23:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very bad idea. Originally nominated for speedy. — Rmhermen 03:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't say much more than the nom here. Wow. --Haemo 03:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow just, delete it now and get this over with. And talk to the editor who created this template, please... — Moe ε 04:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Now, Speedy Delete - Couldn't my original speedy delete stand? Shane ^{(talk/contrib)} 04:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete or BJAODN I think it's very funny, but it runs afoul of WP:NPOV and WP:NOT. Shalom ^Hello 04:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but no substing current tranclusions. Sebi _[talk] 06:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question How does it violate those policies mentioned by Shalom?--Hornetman16 07:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia should not have templates like this for the same reason that it doesn't have disclaimers or content warning templates. This is one step away from making a Megan's law template. - perfectblue 15:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hopefully people will still know to contact the 'local athorities' without this wikipedia template! :) Eliz81 17:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Worst idea I've ever seen on Wikipedia. --- RockMFR 19:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. What are we supposed to be, America's Most Wanted? In addition it's big and ugly. Daniel Case 21:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nonsense. Domthedude001 21:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per eveyones comments above — Ian Lee (Talk) 21:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, completely unnecessary.--_ BaRiMzI _ 22:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BJAODN with fire per WP:NDT--L^augh! 22:40, 15 July 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:Copyrighted-navyphotos 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. Mike Peel 20:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, depreciated template. Its associated category, Category:Navyphotos.co.uk photographs, is welcome to stay because many of these images are still being used under claims of fair use, though I have failed to categorize them in the Navyphotos.co.uk category. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 00:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no current transclusions, and any new images using this template are subject to speedy deletion. No need to keep this around. -- Gavia immer (talk) 19:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Domthedude001 21:38, 15 July 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.