Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 April 4



Shanghai Metro Station Templates

 * 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 all WoohookittyWoohoo! 05:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC) Includes -

The templates above were the old templates to display the list of stations for the Shanghai Metro. Now all of the stations are incorporated into Template:Shanghai Metro, so the old template is not necessary.  Heights (Want to talk?) 23:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete this seems like a good candidate for a cleanup deletion, but have has the template been replaced on all active pages for these stations?--Torchwood Who? (talk) 02:42, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you meant, but yes, all the station pages for the Shanghai Metro are using the new template; the old template was replaced some time ago. If you check the links for all of the templates above, no Shanghai Metro station articles link to any of these old templates. All of them link contain the new template Template:Shanghai Metro now.  Heights (Want to talk?) 21:38, 5 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:American Idol Runners-Up

 * 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 Zzyzx11 (Talk) 07:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Template:American Idol already includes runner-ups so DELETE this unnecessary template. — Aspects (talk) 22:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, redundant to Template:American Idol. Grace notes T § 03:26, 7 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:YouTube celebrities

 * 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. IronGargoyle (talk) 16:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I just think the term "YouTube celebrity" is down to nothing more than speculation. Buc (talk) 20:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The Template is being used as a collective list of YouTube users who have a Wikipedia article. If the title is speculative, change the title. Why should it be deleted because you think something that can be edited and changed is speculative? CoolKid1993 (talk) 22:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. After thinking about it. I am now favor of deletion. The subject is bound to change so often that maintenance on the template and related article will be a challenge. Plus, many YouTube users have attempted (and will attempt) to add themselves. We should create an "Internet Celebrities" template and replace the current one.
 * Done Buc (talk) 16:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep and fix This is still a rather new arena with some of the YouTube celebs crossing over into more mainstream media venues. The template could use some focusing but that's a reason to improve it not delete it. Banje boi  22:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

*Reluctant keep. While I tend to think Wikipedia gives too much attention to this type of thing, as long as we have articles on these people, this is a useful template, linking them together by their most notable shared attribute. The only good reason to delete this is that a category might be better, and even then I don't think there's much harm in having both. Terraxos (talk) 03:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC) On second thoughts, Delete. There's no need for this template. It does not represent a well-defined group; it's questionable just who is a 'YouTube celebrity', and there's no link between any of these people beyond the fact they've appeared in YouTube videos. Since they're already linked by a category, I think this template is probably unhelpful and unnecessary. Terraxos (talk) 01:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment is it appropriate to use the label of youtube since many of people who would fall into this category also have found success on other similar websites? Maybe a meme celebrity for example?--Torchwood Who? (talk) 02:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Suggestion Perhaps this template can be moved over to "Internet Celebrities". This would automatically put into a place the notability requirement used for articles. It should also make the template less subjective and far less fluent than a YouTube version.-DevinCook (talk) 09:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, as argued at Articles for deletion/List of YouTube celebrities (3rd nomination), "YouTube celebrity" is a coherent enough concept to make a discriminate list – that is, individuals who have become notable through YouTube involvement – and also to make a template. Uses of the term in news articles reflect this. Grace notes T § 05:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete we already have List of YouTube celebrities and Category:YouTube video producers.--YooTuba (talk) 22:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The List/Category/Template trinity is more common than you think. For example: A*Teens discography, Category:A*Teens songs, and Template:A*Teens. Navboxes provide intra-article navigation, and serve a different function than categories, which are more administrative in nature. Lists fulfill an informational need, since they can be annotated and sourced. Grace notes T § 00:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes but that's about a band, this is about a bunch of people that are only connected by being users of the same website. We don't have a template with 1000 people who all use myspace. It is ridiculously large and unmanageable.--YooTuba (talk) 14:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The template is not about individuals who use YouTube. It's about individuals who have become notable as a result of their YouTube participation. "YouTube celebrity" has entered the internet popular culture lexicon, whereas "MySpace band" is less common, although bands (and, for that matter, "MySpace celebrity" for individuals) have gained prominence through MySpace activity. Grace notes T § 14:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * In that case, if it is decided to keep the template and the related List of YouTube celebrities article, we need to decide on which criterion are necessary for inclusion. I suggest that people are only eligible if and only if: (1) They either: (a) have/had a video in the Top Ten Most Viewed or (b) are in the Top Ten Most Subscribed and (2) have a reference from a major third party source. Naturally, forums are not to be considered a major source. Finally, both the template and article need to be semi-protected to prevent spam -DevinCook (talk) 17:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per YooTuba. Template is completely excessive and totally unnecessary in this case. How about a template for List of Americans that would join the articles of every American? It would definitely be more maintainable that this pop fad list. +Hexagon1 (t) 04:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. -DevinCook (talk) 04:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. A navigation box should contain a well-defined set of articles. What is the need of navigating between this set of notable YouTube celebrities? What if the list of YouTube celebrities grows to 500 people; should all of them be included in the template? The chance that the template is going to change is high, and it means that this template must be added/removed to articles every time the list is changed. The list is fine, but the template should be deleted. --Kildor (talk) 19:40, 16 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:NFL team season lists

 * 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! 05:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Isn't the the Category:National Football League teams seasons good enough for something like this?. Buc (talk) 19:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep it allows people to navigate through lists of teams seasons better and i dont see the problem with having both Frank Anchor, (R-OH) (talk, contribs) 19:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Frank Anchor. Templates and categories coexist for many other groups of articles. NewYork483 (talk) 16:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment I've also noticed it isn't even most of the articles it links to. Buc (talk) 08:56, 8 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:666Satanproj

 * 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! 07:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject O-Parts Hunter has been deemed historical, per consensus from its parent project and lack of active participants. As such, its project template is no longer needed. It has already been removed from the few O-Parts Hunters articles.. Collectonian (talk) 06:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. If the wikiproject is ever ressurrected, it will be as a workgroup, and use the main project's template, so this one is useless even in that eventuality. --erachima talk 06:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as erachima says. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as an obsolete template to a inactive WikiProject. There where only 5 articles that would ever have to tag placed on them, which made the WikiProject unnecessary in the first place. --Farix (Talk) 20:11, 4 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:Economy of Malaysia

 * 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 Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Three reasons. 1. Rather than discuss about the economy, it seems to be mainly about government projects. 2. Topics which included like Pos Malaysia, PKFZ and MEPS is hardly about macroeconomics and it does not aid in bringing understanding the Malaysian economy. 3. No such template for other countries. __earth (Talk) 03:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. I find none of those reasons convincing for why we should delete a navigation template. If there are better topics to put in it, then that can be dealt with editorially. --erachima talk 06:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, but remove the bank logo as an unfree image (+ it looks hideous as it has non-transparent edge). +Hexagon1 (t) 04:06, 14 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.