Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 February 26



Template:Asher Roth

 * 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 discussion was delete --User:Woohookitty Diamming fool! 11:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Only two links, not nearly enough for a template. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 20:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, way too short. If there is more links related to this, we could always re-add it. Versus22 talk 08:31, 27 February 2009 (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:2013 NBA Draft

 * 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 discussion was delete --User:Woohookitty Diamming fool! 11:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Future event, too far in the future to need a placeholder article... a little crystalball'ish also... Adolphus79 (talk) 16:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Seconded.--Muboshgu (talk) 19:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete wait until 2013 comes. Versus22 talk 08:29, 27 February 2009 (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:New York State Judiciary

 * 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 discussion was Keep. Happy‑melon 17:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

This template isn't on any page, I want to merge the information with Template:Politics of New York Muboshgu (talk) 16:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Correction: it is on a few pages, but still all of the information is within the other template, which could easily be substituted for the smaller template.--Muboshgu (talk) 18:06, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. The NY Judiciary has strange nomenclature, probably the most confusing of the 50 states. It is a distinct branch of government. It would be okay to have a template that reads 1. NY legislature 2. NY Governor and 3. NY Judiciary. It is something else again to integrate it into the general confusion of NY government in a subservient position. It is not subsevient in itself to the other three branches but (like all the rest of the states and federal) a co-equal branch. Student7 (talk) 01:34, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. As Student7 mentioned above, New York's courts have weird names.  I see no reason to use the larger template on these articles when a smaller one does just as well without being so obtrusive.  -- Eastlaw  talk ⁄ contribs 09:08, 3 March 2009 (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:lb

 * 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 discussion was Delete. Thoroughly useless. Happy‑melon 17:06, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a very strange template. It would seem the creator (a suspected sock) intended it to be a shorthand for lb to kg, instead it displays the first unnamed parameter providing a link to that template. J IM ptalk·cont 09:16, 26 February 2009 (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:Pedagogic

 * 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 discussion was Delete. Happy‑<b style="color:darkorange;">melon</b> 17:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Nobody seems to have used this template even once, anywhere, and something like would do a similar job just as well. —Switchercat talkcont 00:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem: confusing redirects to the reader. But specialized readers can understand an article that can be difficult for regular readers. This template address this problem. This is specially important for the article header and introduction. --Nopetro (talk) 13:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Totally redundant to confusing. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 20:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. is the superior template, not only because it is, itself, clearer, but because it correctly identifies the problem, which is reader comprehension, not the requirement for a particular tone. — Gavia immer (talk) 03:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, poorly worded and redundant. Daniel Case (talk) 21:41, 1 March 2009 (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.