Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 April 25



Template:Sugababes Singles

 * 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 debate was delete. Will replace with Sugababes template where applicable. WoohookittyWoohoo! 05:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Template:Sugababes already has this covered. — PC78 (talk) 16:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom - entirely redundant to another template. Terraxos (talk) 22:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Redundant and superfluous. — Hello, Control Hello, Tony  01:59, 27 April 2008 (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 section.

Template:2002 San Francisco Giants

 * 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 debate was delete WoohookittyWoohoo! 05:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete Beyond championship sports teams only notable runners up should be created or else every team will start having templates because WP:ILIKEIT according to their fans. This team is not the 2007 Patriots or 1992/1993 Fab Five. — TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Keep I have obvious bias to suggest keeping the template as I am its author. The Giants, and other winners of pennants, were not runner ups when it comes to a league championship. The National League and the American League both have long histories, that until the last ten years or so, were relatively distinct. In honor of this tradition, all league champions should be recognized. There are many templates for honors that are far less important than playing in a world series, such as templates for Gold Glove Winners and the Number One Pick in a baseball draft. I think if you were to ask a fan or a player what was more important, they would say winning a league championship. In all, my comments and yours, I believe, center around the question: does having a template in this case comply with WP:Notability? Considering the high media coverage of the World Series, the number of press articles we could find concerning the World Series, and the existence of a whole article on Wikipedia about the 2002 World Series, I would contend that the notability requirement has been met.User:calbear22 (talk) 07:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment As a Dodger fan and I would vote against templates for all their second place teams. Even the 77 and 78 teams of my youth and all the teams my dad told me stories about. Being on a .500 NBA team that makes the playoffs is probably a bigger deal than being the champ of a European league, but being a champion is being a champion and chamions get templates.  Second place is a slippery slope.  I want Bronze medal hoops team templates deleted, but there was no consensus.  It is just not a matter of notability here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Delete they didnt win the World Series, so this should not exist--Yankees10 22:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. If similar templates are created for every kind of championship, some players will soon have an unmanagable number of templates added to its articles. And there is really no need to navigate between this specific set of players. --Kildor (talk) 07:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * There isn't really a need to navigate between players on a championship team either.
 * It depends on what other type of championships we are considering. Each would need to be individually considered.User:calbear22 (talk) 16:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete after transcluding to 2002 San Francisco Giants season. Neier (talk) 13:59, 28 April 2008 (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 section.

Template:The Bob & Tom Show

 * 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 debate was keep WoohookittyWoohoo! 05:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Radio shows do not need navigation templates, especially when they are 90% red links.. Rtphokie (talk) 01:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Television shows get them, the Bob and Tom show is heard on over 100 different affiliates, and less than 90 percent are red links. Strong Keep. --Josh (talk) 04:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, I suppose, but get rid of the red links. The template doesn't require a complete discography, it just needs to navigate between those articles which actually exist. PC78 (talk) 16:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I guess, although I am dubious about these navboxen anyway. It would be possible to have am automated implemenationof PC78's desiderata above. Rich Farmbrough, 17:46 25 April 2008 (GMT).
 * Keep Keep the template and I agree with those above regarding too many red wikilinx! Lmcelhiney (talk) 15:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. I've gone ahead and removed all of the red links in the template. PC78 (talk) 17:41, 2 May 2008 (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 section.