Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 March 2



Template:GSLAC Camp System

 * 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 speedy deleted by User:Rlevse. JPG-GR (talk) 00:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

This is infobox creep, used for one single not-independently-significant council, and the Scouting WikiProject are streamlining and reducing templates and infoboxes. Unnecessary to articles and to project itself.— Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 21:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I speedied it. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 21:49, 2 March 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:Infobox dead mall

 * 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) 00:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

This template is only being used at one article. (Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Infobox_dead_mall, article is University Mall (Little Rock, Arkansas)) It might have been meant for shopping malls not active anymore, but compared with Template:Infobox shopping mall, this template doesn't make any actual addition which would make it more suitable to be used on articles about malls closed.

Switch templates with the article in question and Delete as nom. — ~Iceshark7 (talk) 10:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as an unnecessary duplicate of Infobox shopping mall. JPG-GR (talk) 17:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - absurd idea! —TreasuryTag talk contribs  19:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 *  Speedy Delete why do we need several templates that contain the same information? If needed, add a field to existing template called Status indicating whether the mall is open or closed. The template has been removed from the only article it was used on and should now be deleted. --Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Contribs) 17:59, 8 March 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:CAFES

 * 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) 00:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

depracated, orphaned per WP:CASH. Rschen7754 (T C) 09:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as deprecated. --NE2 11:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Heh, I saw the red line and was too lazy to fix it at around midnight... --Rschen7754 (T C) 18:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete yep - useless and deprecated —  master son T - C 03:40, 4 March 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:CAScenic

 * 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) 00:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

depracated, orphaned per WP:CASH. Rschen7754 (T C) 09:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as deprecated. --NE2 11:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete yep - useless and deprecated —  master son T - C 03:40, 4 March 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:Externalimage

 * 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 User:Docu

Delete per WP:SPAM, WP:EL. Wikipedia is not a Wikimedia Commons, Google Image Search. and all link moved to External link section.— Wright1235 (talk) 02:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC) — Wright1235 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Strong keep I've never seen this template used for spamming, or any other inappropriate purposes. It was created to provide a useful way to add links to copyrighted external photos within the text of articles and is serving its purpose well. --Nick Dowling (talk) 04:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment This nomination for deletion is the editor's first (and so far only) edit. Given that they're quoting policies and are going through a relatively obscure process it smells rather fishy... --Nick Dowling (talk) 04:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep per Nick. Kirill 05:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I fail to see how this violates either policy; in fact, it seems to be perfectly within the policy lines our new guy has given for deletion. And I echo what Nick said: something about this nomination smells fishy... &mdash;TomStar81 (Talk) 06:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.   —TomStar81 (Talk) 06:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Nick. Kyriakos (talk) 07:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep there is no violation of any of the stated policies. The fact that a template could be misused is not grounds for deletion: the same argument could be extended to removing all External Link sections from articles. If there are any inappropriate external images linked to by this template (and as Nick says, I have never seen any), they can be dealt with in the normal manner: amend or revert them. &mdash; BillC talk 10:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and there are clear rules when to remove externalimage from an article. So it isn't spam, only a temporary solution. Wandalstouring (talk) 11:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I think that a speedy keep in line with WP:SNOW is in order here. --Nick Dowling (talk) 08:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep – this template is often used to link to external, copyrighted images, for which it is ideal. We cannot upload such images, and we can't directly link to to them otherwise we'd be accused of leaching.  Strange nomination. Carré (talk) 10:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Useful template and no real reason given for deleting it. Someone may as well remove it from TfD.  --Harlsbottom (talk) 16:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Very strong keep. If we are going to insist on excluding so many fair use images we at least owe readers an easy chance to get to them without going down to external links. Daniel Case (talk) 16:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per TomStar81. MalikCarr (talk) 09:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep per Nick. --Geronimo20 (talk) 01:13, 8 March 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.