Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 January 5



Template:Partners Harvard Medical International

 * 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! 09:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Delete non notable partner program and Overtemplatation. THE CCHHEF (talk) 21:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: Not notable doesn't even have its own article. Also a template too far: The precedent it sets doesn't bare thinking about Pit-yacker (talk) 21:52, 5 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:St John's College, Cambridge

 * 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! 09:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)



Used only on St John's College, Cambridge, where it imparts no useful information other than what is already in the article. There are no internal article links, and the external ones not only shouldn't be in a Navbox but also break WP:EL. ninety:one 21:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination Pit-yacker (talk) 21:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep It has several internal article links, and is transcluded on several pages. Please delete the older template, but not this one.User:CharlieRCD
 * Delete - I see only three transclusions, on pages which would already have links to/from the main college article. All but two of the internal links point to subsections on the main article, and the external links/categories should not be in a navbox. In all the template has very little navigational use.  RichardΩ612  Ɣ ɸ 10:55, 10 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:Pp-semi-spambot

 * 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. JPG-GR (talk) 06:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)



This template is currently unused and has been very rarely used since its creation, see this precedent for template:Spambot, the old full-protection version. The function can easily be handled by the generic or. Also nominated the associated empty categories Category:Semi-protected against spambots and Category:Wikipedia pages semi-protected against spambots. Cenarium (Talk)  23:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC) 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 10:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom, seems a logical enough rationale. We almost never get spambots here, so the plain semi-prot template is sufficient. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 20:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - seems to be rare enough that it doesn't need its own template, we can use the other semi-protected templates instead. Terraxos (talk) 01:33, 7 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:AmericanTerrorism

 * 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 --User:Woohookitty Diamming fool! 09:07, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

This template strikes me as problematic for WP:BLP reasons. While I don't have any objection to any of the current names listed there, 'alleged terrorists' does not seem like a good idea for a navbox - 'category:alleged terrorists' would surely not be acceptable, and is this any better? I think this is the kind of data that should be presented in list form rather than as a template or category, and putting it this way is just asking for problems. Terraxos (talk) 04:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep, we have BelgianTerrorism, FrenchTerrorism, AzeriTerrorism and CanadianTerrorism matching it - the difference here is that the template was changed to read "alleged terrorists" instead of "alleged militants" -- but each one has a necessary "wrongly accused" category, and includes typically only those people convicted on terrorism charges (or in some cases, killed on the battlefield). As the template grows in the future it will need to be narrowed down into specific areas (The Canadian one is already bulging and at its maximum) -- but that's certainly not a reason for deletion. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 05:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Debatedly all of these templates are a vehicle for pushing the POV that terrorism (or even Islamic fundamentalist terrorism) was invented on September 11 2001.  The term "war on terror" is no more than a label attached by western (chiefly US) politicians to justify a particular doctrine of foreign policy.  Islamic fundamentalist terrorism and terrorism in general has existed (even with regards to the US) for decades.
 * Canada's one saving grace is that it considers other "campaigns" such as the IRA, but the question then comes - where do you stop? and what constitutes terrorism? Pit-yacker (talk) 21:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If an WP:RS explicitly alleges someone is a terrorist, or an WP:RS explicitly reports that someone else has alleged an individual is a terrorist, then they are an alleged terrorist. Even if the allegation seems questionable to us, on a personal level, if an WP:RS makes the assertion, we should use it, because WP:VER says the wikipedia aims for "verifiability, not truth".  Geo Swan (talk) 21:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * So, would your concern evaporate, if this template also listed earlier American Terrorists, like the Fenians, the Unabomber and Timothy McVey? Would your concern evaporate if there was a companion template for the earlier American terrorists.  Geo Swan (talk) 22:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Without regard to how innately truthful the meme "war on terror" is, or isn't -- it is a powerful meme with a life of its own. Covering this meme, in a neutral fashion, should not be regarded as endorsing it -- or attacking it.  We should be able to cover it in a manner that is generally not seen as either an endorsement or an attack.  Not covering this meme, at all, because we disagree with the position of its proponents -- I think that is what would be a lapse from WP:NPOV.  Geo Swan (talk) 22:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 'Reply: I guess that is where it gets complicated - For example, in the case of the French template, a number of the cases go back to a campaign in the 1990s with its roots in Algeria and France's role as the former colonial power. I would be interested to see if there any reliable sources that specifically mention the people involved in this and the term "War on Terror" that headlines the template.  Certainly at least one of the articles has no sources at all.
 * Secondly, while not wanting to get into debate about "verifiability, not truth", I will say that AFAICT being based in the US and sourcing from another source, would not protect Wikipedia from a libel action in the English courts - a route that has been taken in recent years for libel because of the lower burden of proof in English courts. Pit-yacker (talk) 22:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * As for including other terrorist campaigns as I alluded to before - Where do you stop? What is a terrorist attack? Who is a terrorist? Pit-yacker (talk) 22:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * So, if the allegation that Joe Blow is a terrorist is well enough sourced in the Joe Blow article to be in the article itself, surely it exposes the wikipedia to no greater liability in the UK or other courts to also list the Joe Blow article in Category:alleged terrorists, or in Template:AmericanTerrorism? It is, I believe, already policy that articles shouldn't be included in categories unless the inclusion in the category can be justified by something in the article.  If the sources that Joe Blow is a terrorist are not sufficient to protect the wikipedia from litigation then not only shouldn't Joe Blow be listed in the category and template, Joe Blow shouldn't be characterized as an alleged terrorist in the article, either.  Geo Swan (talk) 22:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * With regard to who decides Joe Blow is a terrorist -- if we merely report that a WP:RS characterized him or her as a terrorist we don't have to reach a consensus on the definition of terrorist. We are merely reporting that a WP:RS called him or her a terrorist.  The allegation might seem transparently bogus to some readers.  If we cover the allegation in a neutral manner then our readers can draw their own conclusion as to the credibility of the allegation, or the meaningfulness of the definition those making the allegation seem to be using.  Geo Swan (talk) 22:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment -- several things about this nomination puzzle me. Nominator asserts Category:alleged terrorists would not be acceptable, and so, by extension, using the title "alleged terrorists" is also not acceptable.  My understanding is that articles about individuals can be included in Category:alleged terrorists -- provided the individual articles each clearly established that a WP:RS has alleged the individual was a terrorist, or reported he was alleged to be a terrorist.  My understanding is that WP:BLP does not proscribe covering allegations, that it merely requires that those allegations be scrupulously well sourced.  I am also puzzled that the nominator didn't raise their concern on the templates talk page -- but jumped immediately to a nomination for deletion.  Geo Swan (talk) 21:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right, I probably should have raised this on the template's talk page first - but I wanted greater input on whether a template like this is acceptable, so decided to bring it here for discussion. You note that allegations of crimes like terrorism must be 'scrupulously well sourced' - but that's precisely the problem with this template, as a template it can't contain any sources, and thus people can be added to it without any accompanying references. I suppose it would be acceptable if carefully watched to prevent abuse, but I just have a bad feeling about this template (and the other countries' equivalents). Terraxos (talk) 01:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * But -- isn't this shared with any article -- added to any template or category? I think we are supposed to always make sure articles are only supposed to be added to categories of templates when the article fully supports the addition.  So long as the project uses categories and templates we have to accept the risk good faith contributors will accidentally add articles where they don't belong -- and that the regretable bad faith contributor may do so on purpose.  It seems to me that arguing that this particular template should be deleted because of this risk should really be an argument that the project should quit using templates.  Cheers!  Geo Swan (talk) 07:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: An example I alluded to earlier being Khaled Kelkal on the French template. Whilst I don't doubt that it is substantially or completely correct, the article does not have a single source never mind the template, and that just goes to show how easy it is to find cases that are not scrupulously well sourced. Ignoring that, IIRC, Kelkal's issue was with French government (as the former colonial power) intervention in the affairs of Algeria, rather than the standard issues of Islamic fundamentalis.  I'm also concerned how somebody who died in 1995, can be also involved in a "war" that "started" in 2001. Pit-yacker (talk) 20:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * A good sign he shouldn't be on the template, not that the template should be deleted. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 23:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep -- for the reasons offered above. Cheers!  Geo Swan (talk) 07:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep -- I simply don't see any reason not to keep it. Certainly the subject matter of "American Terrorism" is sufficiently relevant to warrant its existence.  I am, however, bothered by the fact that the template seems to be devoted to the attacks of September 11th, and subsequent events perceived as being directly or indirectly linked to the existence of Al-Qaeda.  "Terrorism" should not be used as a stand-in for "recent Islamist terrorism."  The April 19, 1995 attack on the Alfred P. Murrah Federal building in Oklahoma City, as well as the exploits of the Weather Underground, the Symbionese Liberation Army, the Jewish Defense League, and various and sundry other organizations and individuals should also be included.  Probably  things like the assassinations of Presidents Abraham Lincoln and William S. McKinley, by John Wilkes Booth and Leon Czolgosz, respectively, should be included as well. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 00:53, 11 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.