Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 June 4



Template:Legal Doctrines

 * 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) 03:18, 13 June 2009 (UTC)



Procedural nomination on behalf of an unregistered user who apparently didn't know how to go through TfD. The user left the talk page comment "What is the value of having a template of legal doctrines that bear no relation to one another apart from their status of legal doctrines? Res ipsa loquitur and sovereign immunity? Attractive nuisance and stare decisis? This template should be deleted." This seems to be a very reasonable comment; as a navbox this links only extremely tenuously related articles. Moreover, if this template was to contain all legal doctrines (in all legal systems - there's already a medley here of equity, common law, Canadian constitutional law, and international law) it would be monstrous and impracticable, yet the criteria for inclusion are unclear and probably impossible to formulate. I therefore support the unregistered user's request for deletion. TheGrappler (talk) 23:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per well-written nom. There are times that a list (see List of legal doctrines) is infinitely more suited to a task than a navbox (see WP:CLN); this is one of those times. This navbox essentially consists of an incomplete collection of loosely-associated concepts and principles which, aside from their basic classification as legal doctrines, share little with one another (such would especially be the case if anyone attempted to complete the template). –B LACK F ALCON  (T ALK ) 03:08, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Garion96 (talk) 11:36, 7 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.

Template:Said

 * 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) 01:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)



Not in use. Adds the word "said" to the Fact template. Comes close to speedy deletion because it doesn't do anything essentially else than Fact. Debresser (talk) 20:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

--William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:55, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete -- not documented, not used.
 * Delete seems useless. —  Jake   Wartenberg  22:09, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per Template namespace: "Templates should not masquerade as article content in the main article namespace; instead, place the text directly into the article." The only difference between this template and fact is the hard-coding of the word "said". –B LACK F ALCON  (T ALK ) 03:10, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, along with Template:Some said, which redirects to Template:Said.  D a n si m a n  ( talk | Contribs ) 14:06, 8 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.

Template:Drugbox2

 * 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) 01:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)



Unused, old version of drugbox. ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 16:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as "redundant to a better-designed template". –B LACK F ALCON  (T ALK ) 03:02, 7 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.

Template:Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Geography/Geography news

 * 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) 01:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)



Unused, appears to relate to expired events, strange namespace setup. BD2412 T 07:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as an ununsed, non-standard news subpage for a portal that would appear to be redundant to the more recently-created (but not updated) Portal:Geography/News. –B LACK F ALCON  (T ALK ) 03:00, 7 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.

Template:Rian Johnson

 * 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) 03:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC)



Only navigates three articles. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete – "Films directed by..." templates are fairly standard but I agree with the nom that, with just two films, this one is premature. –B LACK F ALCON  (T ALK ) 02:54, 7 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.