Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 January 26



Template:WPKHITAN

 * 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 since the Project wasn't deleted. --Magioladitis (talk) 23:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject no longer exists (see Miscellany for deletion), so the banner should be deleted as well. WOSlinker (talk) 23:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment shouldn't the Wikiproject be deleted first, before the template gets nominated? 76.66.198.171 (talk) 06:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It was deleted yesterday when I nominated it. It has since been restored. -- WOSlinker (talk) 19:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep if project survives another MfD, otherwise delete -- WOSlinker (talk) 19:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy close until wikiproject mfd closes. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 17:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note This TfD will remain open until the corresponding MfD closes. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep  Decision was made not to delete the project (Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Khitan_(2nd_nomination)). --Peephole (talk) 21:12, 2 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:Infobox Golfer

 * 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 (and move Infobox Golfer Biography to Infobox Golfer) --Magioladitis (talk) 00:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Template has been superceeded by Template:Infobox Golfer Biography and is now redundant. bigissue (talk) 19:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom: redundant and unused. Terraxos (talk) 00:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete unused --Peephole (talk) 21:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, but then rename "Infobox Golfer Biography" to "Infobox Golfer", in keeping with most other biographical infoboxes, and to reduce reduancy. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:03, 2 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:Kurtlar VadisiNav

 * 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 --Magioladitis (talk) 00:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Unnecessary template for articles that all redirect back to one article (after cleaning up of NPOV splits anyway) -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 17:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom - not enough links to justify a navigational template. Terraxos (talk) 00:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete We don't need templates for two links. --Peephole (talk) 21:06, 2 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:Nn-wikia

 * 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 --Magioladitis (talk) 23:23, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely no reason why we should promote this particular commercial service provider. We are a charity, and promoting a commercial enterprise, which has already got various links to wikipeia (shared directors) looks very bad. Scott Mac (Doc) 16:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It is also unused. So we get bad image for little or no utility.--Scott Mac (Doc) 16:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It is substed, hence it will always be unused from the WhatLinksHere pov.  MBisanz  talk 16:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, OK. But it still should be deleted.--Scott Mac (Doc) 16:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Who's "we"? Neither you nor Ixfd64 have any connection to the Wikimedia Foundation that I am aware of. My recommendation is to keep this and create Template:nn-mywikibiz and whatever others individual users might want to use. --Random832 (contribs) 17:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Discussed before and closed as no consensus. A template like this could be useful, but it should link to a list of other good Wikis, whether hosted at Wikia or not. For example someone who wrote an article like a travel guide might be interested in Wikitravel. --Apoc2400 (talk) 17:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete We should not give importance to Wikia just because it was founded by two prominent Wikimedia individuals. It is a totally separate company, and should remain that way, as it does not fit with our ideals of free knowledge, as it is a for-profit, ad-ridden website.  Majorly  talk  20:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. Either Wikia's part of the WMF and can comply with our policies, or it's an independent company. Wikipedia is not Jimmy Wales's personal advertising service. What next, ? –  iride scent  21:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per all above. Wikipedia is not officially affiliated with Wikia, and we shouldn't be advertising it as if we are. Terraxos (talk) 00:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete If individual users want redirect users to another wiki, they don't need a template. --Peephole (talk) 21:04, 2 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.

Ship box 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 discussion was Procedural close as redirect --Woody (talk) 22:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)



All of these templates were one-off templates (i.e. intended for use in only one article) and were first created in 2006 by User:Joshbaumgartner (notified). Per a discussion at WikiProject Ships, all of these templates have been subst'd on the articles in which they were used and are now being nominated for deletion. — Bellhalla (talk) 16:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per the discussion at WP:SHIPS. Parsecboy (talk) 17:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete--if they have already been subst'd, and there is consensus that they should be deleted, I see no reason to keep them. -- Eastlaw  talk · contribs 17:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * These templates currently serve no purpose, but they cannot be deleted under the GFDL. The edit histories need to be retained as you have simply substed the content. I would suggest redirecting them to the appropriate page and R from merge needs to be added. Regards, Woody (talk) 17:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If that's the case, then I have no objections to the closing of the nomination. — Bellhalla (talk) 21:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * And so it is... regards, Woody (talk) 22:57, 26 January 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:ClinicalTrials

 * 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 since it's redundant and duplicative of a better template and its creator agrees with deletion. --Magioladitis (talk) 15:08, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Redundant and duplicative of the better-documented and more versatile ClinicalTrialsGov.  Eastlaw talk · contribs 00:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * As creator, I am happy that a better version exists, and I have no objection to deletion or redirection. --Arcadian (talk) 00:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * OK then, so far everyone is happy...I already replaced all occurrences of this template with the newer version. -- Eastlaw talk · contribs 00:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete as redundant and unused. Terraxos (talk) 00:51, 28 January 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.