Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 May 17



Template:Eric Church

 * 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 by PeterSymonds, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 23:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Only three links to actual articles, plus a redirect. None of the other singles is particularly notable enough for an article, so I don't see much purpose in this template yet. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 16:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I thought that when i created the two articles on Eric Church's singles, i just thought that i'd make a template for the articles. None of his singles have reached the top ten yet, but i think that he had enough songs and albums to have a template. Ryanbstevens (talk) 21:53, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Not if none of the songs are particularly notable ('cept "How 'Bout You"). Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 15:20, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I usually measure which artists deserve templates, etc. by their career length, the number of albums and singles, and usually not by their measures of success and/or notability. Eric Church has released six singles and two albums, and basically to me, that means that there should be a template for this artist. That's all i can say. Oh, and here's a theory: THEORY: I'm not saying that it will, but let's say that "Love Your Love the Most" manages to reach the top ten, or somewhere higher than where "How 'Bout You" peaked at. Would he deserve a template then? Ryanbstevens (talk) 01:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I usually go by a rule five: if it can easily be used on at least five articles other than the main one, then go for it. So far I can't see it being used on more than three (the albums and "How 'Bout You"). Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 18:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Understandable, especially for a lot of other templates. But i say just redirect it until there's enough articles to warrant a template. Would that work? Ryanbstevens (talk) 21:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No, you can't redirect a template to an article. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 21:32, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 17:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete - a navigational template is not really justified yet in this case (though it's borderline). If some more of the singles were created as articles, then it would be, so if someone does that I would switch to Keep. Robofish (talk) 08:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete for Now - He doesn't need it quite yet, but he may soon. I say delete it for now, and recreate it if he releases more albums/singles, or articles are made on his existing ones. MacMed talk to me! what have i done?  23:42, 21 May 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:Queensong

 * 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 subst and delete --Magioladitis (talk) 08:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Redundant template. It's much, much easier to do this with ordinary coding than with a whole template. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 15:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - nom is right, there is no enough code to be a template, much easier to put the code directly. Locos ~ epraix Beaste~praix 17:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - There is not enough code to make it a template on its own. The old method of connecting to the individual song info pieces was easier. This new method makes the page look cluttered. Krobertj (talk) 21:49, 24 May 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:Discussion

 * 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, but rename to UsertalkHeader. Non-admin closure. -- M C  10  &#124;  Sign here!  21:32, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

This template, whose name should be used for something more general, is currently only used on a handful of userpages. It should be userfied. Ryan Delaney talk 14:24, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep, but rename I don't think it should be deleted, but perhaps renamed to something else. (I use it) -Frozen4322 Talk Stalk Walk 17:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Rename say to UsertalkHeader ? 76.66.202.139 (talk) 05:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, but rename to something like UsertalkHeader. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Rename is fine by me as well.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  18:30, 20 May 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:Mark Williams (singer)

 * 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. CSD T3 applies - template is a duplicate. JPG-GR (talk) 17:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)



Unused template that is replicated by Mark Williams. Tassedethe (talk) 14:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete - Doesn't WP:CSD apply to this case? Locos ~ epraix Beaste~praix 17:21, 17 May 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:Mick Jackson

 * 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.Garion96 (talk) 08:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Unnecessary template of films by a relatively minor director who has only done two even marginally notable films. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 04:49, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - No very notable director but the navtemplate makes its purpose. Locos ~ epraix Beaste~praix 17:23, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep but only barely worth keepingSallyRide (talk) 22:43, 23 May 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.