Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 June 26



Template:Intro-disambig

 * 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) 06:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)



To fix a disambig intro takes one second, almost as long as placing this template. I also have been keeping an eye on this template and at least for some months it has not been in use. Garion96 (talk) 21:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as a cleanup template with an overly narrow scope. If someone is sufficiently familiar with disambiguation page guidelines to recognize that the intro sentence of a disambiguation page does not conform to WP:MOSDAB, then he or she is probably capable of rewriting the intro sentence to conform to the guideline. For the few cases where, for whatever reason, that is not the case, disambig-cleanup would work just fine. –B LACK F ALCON  (T ALK ) 05:11, 30 June 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.

College basketball current roster navboxes

 * 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) 00:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)



College players do not share the automatic notability that justifies the current roster templates and/or navboxes used for pro teams, per WP:ATHLETE. The amount of red links in each navbox demonstrates the notability issue. The NCAA championship templates tend to exclude red links due to this issue, but the championship teams have more inherant notability than the year-to-year roster of a college team. Also, in my opinion, this just seems like a bit of template/navbox overkill. Masonpatriot (talk) 01:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete all. I actually just tagged the Memphis roster template for these same reasons.  It's overkill, and it encourages creation of articles for subjects not notable enough to include. --fuzzy510 (talk) 04:14, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions.  —Masonpatriot (talk) 14:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Overtemplatization. Garion96 (talk) 21:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Actually, college players do share automatic notability per WP:ATHLETE: "People who have competed at the highest amateur level of a sport." The highest amateur level of basketball is NCAA Division I.  Even WP:ATHLETE aside, I feel that some people here are underestimating the coverage of the above teams in local newspapers.  At least 5 players on each of the above teams every year will meet the WP:GNG, so the argument about encouraging bogus article creation doesn't fly. If one believes that too many player articles are being created, AfD those. Furthermore, these templates make sense as every major program now gets a yearly team article which includes the roster anyway.  Oren0 (talk) 17:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Your comment provides the exact forum for these rosters... listed on the season article page. No one is disputing the notability of the team, but there is no need for a roster navbox when it is entirely unlikely that all the players will meet notability requirements (and it is already covered in the article).  Frankly, even if 5 players do meet WP:GNG (an assertion which relies heavily upon a WP:CRYSTALBALL), that alone does not justify the existence of a red-link filled navbox, since the majority of the roster will likely not meet WP:GNG.  On a slightly different note, I completely disagree regarding college athletes having inherant notability under WP:ATHLETE, and you are the first editor I have heard claim that.  I find it hard to believe that a benchwarmer on any college basketball team meets notability, when most minor league baseball players (who are professional) are judged not to have inherant notability by WP:Baseball.  To say that every big basketball program walk-on, all mid-major players, the entire roster of every I-A college football team, college baseball, hockey, etc. all meet notability requirements doesn't seem to be practice across any of those articles.  Also, looking at the discussions currently going on at WP:ATHLETE and some of the college sports WPs, that does not seem to be the prevailing interpretation. - Masonpatriot (talk) 01:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not suggesting that every player on every team should have an article. Most of the 300+ NCAA D1 teams don't have anybody worthy of an article on their rosters.  I believe that WP:ATHLETE does not properly consider NCAA athletes and in this way I believe that guideline to be poorly written, but that's unrelated to the fact at hand.  Even looking at things from the point of view of the WP:GNG, I don't believe the argument that these infoboxes encourage creation of non-notable articles.  The distinction between professional and college athletes is rather arbitrary anyway.  I would bet that the teams above and their starting players receive more coverage than, for example, most MLS or AFL teams.  I wouldn't even be surprised if these schools received more coverage this season than the Charlotte Bobcats.  In fact, compare the Google News results for both in 2008: "Charlotte Bobcats" basketball: 2000 results, "Tar Heels" basketball: 4460 results.  And yet nobody would dispute Template:Charlotte Bobcats roster.  I wouldn't mind if the redlinks in these navboxes were removed, but it doesn't change the fact that I believe these navboxes to be a useful way to navigate between players on teams that are more notable by objective standards than many professional teams. Oren0 (talk) 03:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 *  Keep  Delete The prevalence of red links simply establishes the obvious - a team can be notable, even if not every single member of the team deserves a separate page. If the counting of red links is used to delete templates, it will simply encourage people to create pages for non-notable team members. It would not be wise to encourage bad behavior.-- SPhilbrick  T  19:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I've investigated further, (in particular WP:NAVBOX) and changed my opinion. I haven't changed my opinion about my original point - I do not feel the existence of red links in a navbox is an argument in favor of its deletion, but I didn't pat close enough attention to the fact that there are roster navboxes, as opposed to championship team navboxes. (I do understand that with respect to championship team nav boxes, I am on shaky ground, as many people oppose them as well.) I see a distinction - a nav box is intended to be a navigation guide. It makes sense as a template if it logically belongs on multiple pages where a direct link might not exist. A roster box would naturally be on each players page, but surely each players page has a link to their team. Where else would a roster box logically appear? In contrast, a championship nav box might logically appear on the Conference page, or an NCAA tournament page. On those pages, the nav box provides a useful service. If I may re-emphasize - I support deletion of nav boxes used solely to identify current or past rosters, I support retention of nav boxes for Championship teams.--  SPhilbrick  T  16:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Let me ask you this then: currently, the NBA and MLB both appear to have roster templates for all current players. The NFL does not.  Would you support the removal/deletion of the NBA and MLB templates for the same reason? Oren0 (talk) 17:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment/Question This comment says keep, but the justification seems to back the delete argument. Any clarification? - Masonpatriot (talk) 01:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Clarification Thanks for asking, I may not have clearly stated my point. Consider the Louisville Cardinals. Seven of the 14 players are red links, which is used as support of lack of notability. However, those red links support the argument that those seven players are not notable, not that the team isn't notable. The notability of a team is separate from the notability of the individual players (although one generally expect a notable team to have some notable members). It is easy to imagine a team being notable, having a number of notable members, but a few who do not have separate notability. (As an aside, I'm not a fan of red links. While I may be breaking some rule, I recently created a template for Big East women's Player of the year. Some have their own page, some do not, and I left those without pages in black, not red link.)-- SPhilbrick  T  02:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: A notice regarding this TfD has been placed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College Basketball. Oren0 (talk) 17:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete all per my rationale in this discussion. A roster template is an inefficent way to organize content. Adding this type of template to tens of biographical articles is, in principle, equivalent to creating a section within each article titled "Current team roster"; in the context of any one article about a player, this template constitutes trivia. If the information belongs somewhere, it should be at a centralized location, which could then be linked from individual player biographies. –B LACK F ALCON  (T ALK ) 06:21, 30 June 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.