Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 September 5

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 0 consensous (keep) // Pilotguy (Have your say) 20:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Template:Badkarma (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Unused and simple boilerplate text. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 23:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - useful if employed; no one knows about it. Michael 23:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - this template is required to be subst: anyways, so how do you know it's unused... plus it's a friendly NPOV warning DemosDemon ^{(Talk - contrib)} 23:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Lazy boilerplate text for something that should be written specifically for the edits in question. ^BlankVerse 21:27, 10 September 2006 (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 page.

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 no consensous for this one, a renomination might preoduce a better consensous. // Pilotguy (Have your say) 03:56, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Template:OTA (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Categorize and delete; this is a template for a minor organization representing at best a tertiary characteristic of its members that does nothing but point back to a category. Second submission (see TFD 20060305). choster 21:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per above. Michael 23:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Categorize and delete; the association may be valid enough to connect the articles with a category, but the template is unnecessary. Dbinder (talk) 04:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep Choster first cleaned the template out on 13 March 2006 to a nothing category template, waiting till 5 September 2006 to ad it for deletion. I reverted the original setup of the template. Please reconsidder your vote.Mion 06:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Categorize is not an option.

And Choster your arguments : navigational templates for relatively minor industry associations are not wanted. As you can see about every major carrental in the US is part of this alliance.Mion 06:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• • Actually, I did not touch it until after the close of the previous TfD nomination, and in fact what I did first was provide the complete listing of members on the main Open Travel Alliance page and categorize the article properly. If you consider the complete list of members, you will see at once that listing all the members in the template is at best impractical, and to list them selectively problematic because it looks like commercial promotion. Second, my intent is not to belittle the OTA or the work it does; however, the point is not whether its members are major, but whether membership in the group is not only significant, but more significant than the dozens of other industry consortia and associations its members also belong to, ranging from the W3C to the IATA to the Dow Jones Industrial Average. Think how unwieldy an article like IBM or Sony or American Airlines will become if we set a precent even for trimmed templates for everything from the Blu-ray Disc Association to the IH&RA.-choster 14:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Choster, The vote was 2 keep, 2 delete, and 1 for categorize if I recal, which should have been 3 for categorizing the template. however the template is categorized, but the members are not in the kat Open Travel Alliance.Hum sorry, i have to take that back, there was one categorize and delete which made it categorize or delete. So i better say thanks for waiting. Mion 14:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, i'm sure you where trying to find a better solution on the underlying problem:

You mentioned it already, is it important to mention membership of big alliances. I think so, i made the template to show that there are more alliances in the Travel sector to channel price agreements. Thats also the reason that the EU and the US don't care to lift IATA's permission for anti competetive price agreements, (which normally is forbidden) these price agreements will go on in the other alliances like SITA and OTA.

And is the template better than a category?, i think so, better visibilty and better control than in the categories, about size and numbers of the template, big organisations create big pages.reg.Mion 14:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - This template feels like a combination of Template:Air Transport Association and Template:Renters. Furthermore, the main article is essentially a list of companies organized by a very minor business organization. - DiegoTehMexican 20:44, 11 September 2006 (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 page.

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 it is evidence that only I and the nom want it gone-Doc 16:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Template:Notability (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

"The template suggests that notability is a guidelne for inclusion which should be treated as law. These pages are merely definitions of what is notable, not actual policy or guideline. -- Chris chat edits essays 01:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)"

They are indeed guidelines, except the ones marked "proposed." --Chris (talk) 01:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

See WP:N. "Notability is not policy". These guidelines are merely guidelines defining notability, not guidelines saying "if anything fails this page's subjective tests it must be deleted." -- Chris chat edits essays 01:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the pages do not cater for everything, they merely point out instances where things "are" going to be classified as notable and hence worthy of an "encyclopedic" article. Notice I can say all of that and not refer to a policy or founding principle! (not to put an overly cynical spin on things) Ansell 02:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Nice job not citing policy! I'm concerend with new editors thinking that all pages must follow these suggestions to the letter. Beacuse, after all, "An article's failure to meet these suggested requirements is frequently used as an argument to delete said article on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, but bear in mind that the only requirement for material to be included in Wikipedia is that it is verifiable." -- Chris chat edits essays 02:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Guidelines are not policy either. You said these pages are merely definitions of what is notable, not actual policy or guideline. Then you said these guidelines are merely guidelines defining notability. Which one is it? --Chris (talk) 12:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• This nom is at the very least ill-informed. If you think the template misstates the true status of these guidelines, change the template. No case for deletion has been made here. I suggest a sysop speedy close this debate. - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep. This is a dangerous idea. We must be able to use notability as a guiding principle, no matter how subjective. Without it, every single website, company, and person in existence can assert their existence by means of sources without any need to be a "good reason" to be in an encyclopedia. We have enough trouble with tons of useless bits of information being added under the guise of the "inclusionist" philosophy -- an appeal that threatens to further weaken the integrity and respectability of Wikipedia in the greater academic world. The template makes the specific point that an article is "more likely" to be deleted, rather than stating that this is a policy or that it definitely will. AfD review asissts in deleted articles getting a second chance. - CobaltBlueTony 02:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• Why rely on a review to tackle things from the direction of having to get things back again. And I have not read anywhere about people complaining that wikipedia has information on too many "random things". The only place I hear that is from Wikipedia editors. Its academic credibility might increase if more people spent time improving articles instead of "tagging them". Ansell 03:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• • Yeah, it's dangerous to have too many encyclopedia articles. Forget that articles need to be cited in third party websites and need to be verifiable... those don't restrict articles at all, according to you. It's dangerous, you see, to include articles on things you haven't heard of. -- Chris chat edits essays 03:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
    • A page about some cool guy and his website is not an article for an encyclopedia; adding more of those is not adding more encyclopedia articles. Also, while WP:N is not official policy, it is a reasonable extrapolation of WP:NOT and WP:5P, which are central. —Centrx→talk • 06:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep per Crz and CBT. This template is very helpful in a. tagging articles that don't necessarily meet deletion requirements, but are more likely of consideration for deletion than Mao Zedong or General Electric, and b. alerting creators, especially new ones, that they should try to explain why the subject of "their" article is notable enough for remaining in this encyclopedia. I really don't understand the nomination. Picaroon9288•talk 02:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • If the page doesn't meet deletion requirements what grounds are there for any action at all, except for improving the page. Ansell 03:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't see why I should be required to try (perhaps in vain) to find information about some person I've never heard about and don't care about when the person who added it would have such knowledge or access to such information and when I might suspect the person doesn't even warrant an article anyway. Your argument could just as well apply to {{wikify}} and {{cleanup}}. —Centrx→talk • 06:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep— Extremely usefull to foster the discussion of marginal articles. Williamborg (Bill) 03:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Useful, functional template, as described above. It does not purport to list policy and is a useful means to flag articles that need revision to show their encyclopedic value but are by no means suitable for deletion. Agent 86 04:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: Useful and often used templates. The arguments for deletion are not reasonable. —Centrx→talk • 06:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - template creep I'm fed up with this template. If something isn't notable enough for you, then nominate it for deletion. THis template is so often used when the notability of the article is explained or assered, but the tagger doen't view it as notable enough. That's a debate for afd, not for some lazy git stamping a hideously ugly boilerplate over the article and wandering off. --Doc 08:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Notability is a guideline (though not a rule) for inclusion. Totally non-notable articles don't belong in the encyclopedia, and this template serves a real purpose by allowing for the tagging of borderline articles before nominating them for deletion. Zetawoof^(ζ) 08:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• Please link to the page stating that notability is a guideline. WP:N is an essay, and all the pages this templates link to aren't guidelines, but guidelines as to what is notable. -- Chris chat edits essays 12:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Nice for marginal articles - AFD can be a hostile place and should be considered a last resort sometimes. RN 09:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as above. Useful for alerting the editor(s) of the article that it might needs rectifying, before waisting more time on AFD. The JPS^{talk to me} 09:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, but it needs some work as it is far too big for a (necessarily self-referential) maintenance template. Guy 11:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Useful tool. Yes it might be better to have a less overbearing template but this is not the place for such a debate. Also, while notablity is not a policy, the template does refer to widely used guidelines. Also, whether people agree or not, there is a large working-consensus that non-notable subjects are not worthy of articles. Not an indiscriminate collection of information is indeed a policy and the guidelines tend to rely on that. Pascal.Tesson 12:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep— useful as a training tool for article creators / editors for improving the article. Doesn't stop nomination for deletion of the article but might improve it in time - or make clear that deletion is the right thing to do. --AlisonW 15:02, 5 September 2006 (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 page.

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 // Pilotguy (Have your say) 20:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Template:User FORTH-1 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Delete No Use, plus too many red links and red cats DemosDemon ^{(Talk - contrib)} 21:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per above. Michael 23:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per above - the links link to the wrong page Forth programming language does exist ? The categories have been deleted - Note : there are also Template:User FORTH-0, Template:User FORTH-2 Template:User FORTH-3 and Template:User FORTH-4 with exacly the same faults for the same reasons (3) has one use (1) has one use the rest have none (Can we do a mass delete on the entire set ?) ^Jaster 14:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - There's also template:User FORTH-N, which is in use by the creator. Pagrashtak 18:00, 8 September 2006 (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 page.

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 // Pilotguy (Have your say) 20:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Template:MyBabble (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Single-user Babel template. Subst and delete. Pagrashtak 22:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Michael 23:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Move to User's Space and Delete ... that was too much to bold... but it said it all DemosDemon ^{(Talk - contrib)} 23:56, 5 September 2006 (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 page.