Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 July 18



Template:Pipe in title

 * 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) 22:46, 25 July 2009 (UTC)



An extreme edge case. Not a single use in mainspace that can't be ascribed to either stylized branding or creative signwriting, which apparently we don't encourage. Even the example given at MARRS appears to have relegated the pipes to a presentational detail. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 21:35, 18 July 2009 (UTC) Delete Doesn't seem to be of much use.  Kayau  Jane Eyre  PRIDE AND PREJUDICE   les miserables  13:01, 25 July 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:Neoconservatives and thinktanks

 * 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) 16:45, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Just as consensus is being reached that this Michelle Bentley-created template defies many of Wikipedia's standards, User:Michelle Bentley creates a new poorly designed (both in terms of visual layout and content) template that violates WP:NPOV and uses one highly contentious and thoroughly debunked source as the basis for its inclusion. GHcool (talk) 17:31, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No it is a well designed template, which describes which thinktanks these 18 individuals has been and are affiliated to. A further improvement would be to add years instead of x-es. There can be no discussion about the accuracy of the content. Mearsheimer and Walt are two very cool-headed academic scholars who have sat down and tracked where these individuals have been. There can be no discussion that these affiliations are correct. One must ask: What are 'Gcool' afraid of? Why doesn't he think that it is for the public good that this information are made availbale for as many as possible? These 18 individuals are a key part of the lobby and has had a huge influence, including steering The United States into a war in Iraq (on false pretentions), which was not in its national interest. This is something that will go into the history books. And if Wikipedia -- the peoples encyclopedia -- can help with this documentation, this is something that should be celebrated. Here Wikipedia is at its finest. On the forefront of the documentation. All constructive, sincere and honest members of the International Community would celebrate this. Who would oppose it and prefer that it remains unknown? Michelle Bentley (talk) 18:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. To User:Michelle Bentley: It seems to me you have some sort of axe to grind, or a personal mission to "expose" the lobby, or some such thing. Templates are not "to make information available". That's what actual articles are for. Templates are used to ease navigation between related articles. This template is, as your other one, is based on personal opinion - do all of these people self-identify as "neocons"? Why just these 18 people? Why not others? More? Less? What's the purpose of this, beyond making you feel good about your personal mission? This is the sort of chart I would expect to see on some blog, not here. Oh, and stylistically - this is terrible. okedem (talk) 18:39, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think there is a slight misunderstanding here. Templates are many things, including infoboxes and wikitables. This is a wikitable, as you will see if you consult the code behind the template. You will also see that it takes quite some space, and this was the reason why I decided to create a special page for it, ie. a template. If I had just made a wikitable in the article, then we would probably not have this discussion, because their would be no 'template' that Gcool' and his friends could rally around. With regard to you last question, everyone can contribute something tp any article, if he knows something about a subject. And if he further more thinks that it will make the article better, he should not hesitate. This should be welcomed by all constructive and sincere editors to wikipedia.Michelle Bentley (talk) 18:51, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Template is a visual disaster. I'm not going to make an judgements about the substantive content of the template (though Michelle Bently above pretty much admits that she's not coming at this from a NPOV), but something like this is more appropriate as a list (if at all) rather than a template. - Masonpatriot (talk) 20:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete The effort would be better put in getting Category:Neoconservatives re-established. It was deleted a few years back before it became more widely used. Of course only people listed as such in their articles can be listed. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:08, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Dear Carol, I have this morning createdCategory:American neoconservatives. I realised that Category:American socialists exist' and decided to create this category, because this issue is under-developed on Wikipedia (and I used the same sub-categories as Category:American socialists  uses. It deals with an equally fringy political philosophy, but one that nevertheless has had a profound effect on developments in recent years, not least on the Iraq War, which probably wouldn't have happened, were it not for these particular neoconservatives. Given that the war has cost - according to some estimates  three trillion dollar, and therefore have contributed significantly to the current poor health of the American economy, it is obvious that this is a category that attracts a lot of attention - and also why some might want to delete it, and just forget all about it, the same way that many neo-conservatives have given up their faith after the Iraq War, which was meant to be the first phase, from where democracy should spread throughout the Middle East. It has allready been proposed for a "speedy deletion"by  Ray  Talk

But the people who wants to delete it, should not be allowed to. When we can have a category about american socialists, then of course we can have about neoconservatives - a group which have had a greater impact on America and thus the world, than American socialists have. I realise that there have been discussions about neoconservatives before, but never about American neoconservatives. I can also well understand why a Category called: "American conservatives" doesn't exist, cause they are covered by Category:Republicans (United States). By the way, Carol: Why do you want to 'delete' this wikitable, that shows which thinktanks these individuals are affiliated with. It is in the public interest to know. One could perhaps understand that you want it removed from the page in question (allthough I have difficulty in comprehending that it should cause you any trouble or cause you to loose sleep at night). But why do you want this wikitable removed alltogether?.Michelle Bentley (talk) 13:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete OR, SYNTH, POV --Shuki (talk) 21:33, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Query Isn't this user (creator of the template) in clear and blatent violation of WP:ARBPIA with both recent commentary as well as their "contributions"?  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  01:23, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm sure that this could be turned into a list, but it is really unnecessary for this site. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Dear Kevin. It is actually some kind of a list, or rather two: It combines a list of names of eighteen neoconservatives with eleven thinktanks, two newspapers and PNAC, which thirteen of them have signed.Michelle Bentley (talk) 12:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * KEEP + A very smart looking wikitable - not a template - which is a refreshment to any page. And the basic information is correct and verifiable. Certain names may be disputed, but this is not the template's fault. John Bernard Winterbottom (talk) 08:34, 19 July 2009 (UTC) — John Bernard Winterbottom (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete OR, SYNTH, POV and BLP.Historicist (talk) 19:58, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per okedem. OR, POV (which Michelle Bentley admits too), and SYNTH. - Epson291 (talk) 07:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - There is nothing new in the information that this table gives. It just lists which organisations and newspapers these individuals are assoiciated with. This is information that is relevant for the public, it is freely verifyable by anyone, the person in question are unable to deny these associations even if they wanted to; there is amble proof in newspapers and other meida that indeed they have these affiliations. This information is new to Wikipedia, and naturally should stay.PeterHarryson (talk) 11:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC) — PeterHarryson (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Clear delete There's an entire mess of POV, BLP, borderline ethnic slurs, and other issues that go into attaching "neocon" willynilly to people. That this is OR and SYNTH just makes it much worse. Ray  Talk 17:25, 23 July 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.