Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 March 1

< February 28	March 2 >

March 1 edit

Template:UFL Stadiums 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 section.

The result of the discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 05:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:UFL Stadiums (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No stadiums have been announced and there is no indication when, if ever, they will be. No prejudice to recreation if league becomes established or if reliable sources for proposed venues can be found in future. Rameses The Ram (talk) 18:33, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Redundant, only entry is "TBA". Hippopotamus (talk) 00:56, 6 March 2009 (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:Cagayan de Oro City newspapers 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 section.

The result of the discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 05:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cagayan de Oro City newspapers (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Negligible template wherein only one link actually has a WP article. Xeltran (talk) 12:01, 1 March 2009 (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:Needs X Infobox 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 section.

The result of the discussion was Delete. Happy‑melon 18:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Needs venue infobox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Needs television infobox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Needs football biography infobox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to both {{Reqinfobox}} and WP Banners that now handle need infobox switches and just produce more cruft and space waste onto article talk pages. Peachey88 ^{(Talk Page | Contribs)} 05:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. The one simple category is enough. We don't need: Needs TV infobox, needs football infobox, etc. {{Reqinfobox}} is all we need since it covers everything. Versus22_talk 05:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't agree that these are redundant to {{reqinfobox}}, but as they are all unused and redundant to parameters in appropriate project banner templates then I see no reason to keep them. PC78 (talk) 13:12, 2 March 2009 (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:Creigh Deeds 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 section.

The result of the discussion was Delete. G7. Happy‑melon 18:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Creigh Deeds (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

It's really a total of four articles, some of which I really am not sure should be separated. While I understand he is running for governor this year, I doubt he's going to have that many articles on him. Ricky81682 (talk) 04:07, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The articles referenced in this template should be considered for merger into one article if possible. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm the creator and I see what you're saying. Even though I disagree with merging the articles, I can agree with you that a template really isn't necessary. The 3 articles all have links to the main page, thus rendering a template useless. Bigvinu (talk) 14:54, 1 March 2009 (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:EEMedeemeys 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 section.

The result of the discussion was Delete. The nom's point is certainly valid; this template provides no useful navigational link that is not available from {{EastEnders}}. Replace and redirect. Happy‑melon 18:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:EEMedeemeys (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I'm adding this TfD for a user who mistakenly nominated it at AfD, and am expressing no opinion on the nomination, which follows. Deor (talk) 22:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This template is confusing as it is more or less the same as the other family trees, and is using a name that is only familiar to a few people.

I wanted to nominate the template {{EEMedeemeys}} from the British soap opera EastEnders for deletion because I think it is pointless for Wikipedia. All of the characters in the template are covered in other templates and it is almost identical to the template: {{EEBeales&Fowlers}}.

This is the first time I've nominated an article for deletion and I hope I did it correctly. Regards Cutekitten05 (talk) 21:48, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, delldot ∇. 03:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Template:EastEnders. Spinach Monster (talk) 21:50, 1 March 2009 (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:Obama personnel, Cabinet-level child-template 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 section.

The result of the discussion was keep. Erik9 (talk) 23:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Obama personnel, Cabinet-level child-template (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Same exact thing in an easier to remember name at Template:Obama cabinet. No reason to have both.Spinach Monster (talk) 21:48, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Revisiting the same issues raised in this template's previous TFD discussion: Unlike the other template, this one shows only current members and serves as a component of a parent navigational template used mainly at the bottom of biographies. ↜Just me, here, now … 23:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn't seem to have been a strong consensus at that last TFD, and the code on this template is more complicated than the other one, it's easier to put in the image files. Spinach Monster (talk) 03:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - No need for deletion. Jason (talk) 05:19, 3 March 2009 (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.