Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 September 25

< September 24	September 26 >

September 25 edit

Template:Future monument 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. matt br 08:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"A future monument or memorial" ... too unspecific to be useful as information, too specific to be useful as a "Future ..." template. Not formatted according to article message guidelines either.. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it's not even being used. — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim}^dagnabbit!) 14:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I would think something either is a monument or is not, and to claim "future" status violates WP:CRYSTAL. The monument might be noteworthy if and when it is completed, as plans don't always work out. MSJapan 17:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An non useful template which is used nowhere. --Kudret abi^Talk 06:20, 5 October 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:Polemic 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 speedily deleted at request of creator. Neil ム 09:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a speedy deletion warning template for "polemic" userpages. There is no such speedy criterion. This may be on the edge of speediness itself, as it may violate CSD T2, which prohibits blatant misrepresentations of policy. szyslak 10:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, I think T2 is applicable here. Carlosguitar 16:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Onnaghar ^{talk ! ctrb} 16:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Can be speedy deleted under G7 as the only edit not made by me on that page was the adding of the TFD notice. FunPika 18:53, 25 September 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.

College basketball navigation templates 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 ^demon^{[omg plz]} 16:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These navigation templates link to just two articles: the one on the current head coach and the one on the university or its athletic programs. There are 16 redlinks in the Western Carolina and Connecticut templates. These templates can be re-created if articles on all or most of the coaches are created. szyslak 07:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all red link farm, actually unhelpful. Carlosguitar 16:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - agree, if more coaches are notable enough to get articles, these can be recreated. — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim}^dagnabbit!) 14:58, 3 October 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.