Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Category5


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was DELETE. Paul August &#9742; 03:14, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Template:Category5
Firstly, Rita won't be the only Cat 5 soon enough to pose a threat to the US. Secondly, Gilbert never made US landfall. NSLE | Talk 03:17, 22 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep : The reason this is a templete is because of an ongoing edit war with the wording of the sentences. I am fully well aware that the templete is tweaked for Rita, and that the Rita won't be the only Cat-5 hurricane. The templete can be updated to reflect the changing times and we can remove hurricane Gilbert if it never made landfall, but do we absolutly have to delete this so soon? TomStar81 03:19, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
 * We (Meaning me and NSLE) have reached a compromise. As part of my end, I hearby switch my vote and support the delete. TomStar81 03:39, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete: this is article content in the template namespace. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 03:21, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. I don't support using templates as end-runs around edit wars. *Dan T.* 03:25, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Niether do I, but it was a simple solution to a complex problem. That and Mom wasn't going to put diner on hold so I could find a better solution ;-) TomStar81 03:39, 22 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Strong delete. Incorrect information (Gilbert did make landfall at Category 5 - but it was a Caribbean landfall, not US landfall) plus it doesn't belong in template format. CrazyC83 03:42, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete by request of author User:TomStar81. DDerby (talk) 07:06, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as per above. Groeck 16:31, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
 * This is a template, so ought more properly to be on TFD. But seeing as things are progressing ok here, I'll let it run. If it's author would like it speedied, might I ask that they so so clearly? -Splash talk 19:24, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
 * As the author I clearly state that if you want it speedied, you may do so. TomStar81 00:20, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't this discussion be held on TFD? Aecis 21:28, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, it should be. But I created this discussion in a bit of haste without noticing TFD, so here it is, on AFD. -- NSLE | Talk 02:16, 23 September 2005 (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 article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.