Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 September 24



Template:Host Cities of the Francophonie Summits

 * 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! 05:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

While "host cities of the Francophonie summits" is a natural grouping, it is still not suitable for a navbox. It is not really significant to the history of these cities (the list includes several national capitals) that they at one time hosted a summit of La Francophonie. For example, while the fact that the 1991 summit took place in Paris is important in the context of the article La Francophonie, it is not especially significant in the context of the article Paris (at most, it might merit a few words). In addition, if such templates were created for other international organisations, this would quickly lead to template clutter on articles about most major cities. A list already exists at Francophonie. (See also the related CFD.)
 * Delete as nominator. –Black Falcon (Talk) 22:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * As a template of purely links to cities, I agree that it isn't especially significant. However, the template design could be worthwhile if converted to be of links to the individual summits. matt91486 (talk) 05:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Convert from list of cities to list of summits per Matt91486. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 00:26, 30 September 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:Nth

 * 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. Wizardman 17:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Unsed tempate, questionable utility, does not actually do what it says. --Salix alba 22:46, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Who would need to use this?  Richard Pinch (talk) 08:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. The template which takes 1 to "st", 2 to "nd", etc., might be helpful.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 01:50, 27 September 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:CoS-IRS

 * 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. Wizardman 17:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I thought only Works of US Government Employees were public domain. Last time I checked, the government doesn't write our taxes for us. ViperSnake151 21:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Records that are part of the application process for tax exemption for U.S. charities (tax code 501 (c)) become public record, after the tax exemption has been granted. If you would only follow the link within the template to the website of the IRS and read the official text, you would find that out too. Keep. Martin Ottmann (talk) 23:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete, together with all files using this template. Read en:WP:PD. Public records are not automatically in the public domain. "Right to access" ≠ "Right to copy and republish", and inclusion in the public records does not make a work PD-USGov. Lupo 07:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, and PUI all the files using this template. Stifle (talk) 13:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm speedying several of the files using this template under CSD:I10 as they are not images, audio, or video files and have no encyclopedic use. Wikipedia is not a free webhost. Stifle (talk) 13:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * ...and the CoS is known to be rather litigious about use of its materials. Stifle (talk) 13:23, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: I've closed the discussion of the Commons version as delete; please see my closing comments there; they are, of course, applicable here. Эlcobbola  talk 20:01, 30 September 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:Godheim (band)

 * 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! 05:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

This template was created December 2007, but still only contains red links. Seems like these articles won't be created (at leats for some time) and therefore this template is unnecessary. ☺   Spiby    ☻  13:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as useless. A navigation template should not be orphan and must navigate through articles not red links. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:56, 1 October 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:unaccredited

 * 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. delldot  &nabla;.  19:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Disclaimer template. Stifle (talk) 13:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * As was said last time this was nominated for exactly the same reason, it's not a disclaimer template, it's a standard form of words that was hashed out after much debate to cover, in a neutrally worded way, the what lack of accreditation actually means, in the numerous articles on unaccredited institutions which range from fundamentalist Bible colleges to outright diploma mills. Guy (Help!) 13:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Not a disclaimer. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:37, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Not a disclaimer.  Property categorization of diploma mills unaccredited institutions.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 01:53, 27 September 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.