Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 May 23



Template:Glasses Malone

 * 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. Garion96 (talk) 09:25, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Musical artist template with links to only three articles (the artist, his (unreleased) album, and his record label), used in only two articles (the artist and his album). Pointless. TheJazzDalek (talk) 18:30, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep keep but may not be notable enough SallyRide (talk) 22:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete because there is not enough material at this time to justify the existence of a navbox. Navboxes exist to facilitate navigation between articles, and in this case the articles are adequately interlinked via in-text links. –Black Falcon (Talk) 01:38, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per Black Falcon: no need for a navbox at this time. Robofish (talk) 01:25, 27 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:List of destroyer classes of the United States Navy

 * 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 Garion96 (talk) 09:29, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Unneeded template. Was transcluded on List of destroyer classes of the United States Navy and List of destroyer classes, but was substituted.  my name  inc Ottoman project  17:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete redundant, doesn't add enoughSallyRide (talk) 22:47, 23 May 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." –Black Falcon (Talk) 01:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Appears to have originally been created to ensure consistency across the two mentioned articles; logical, perhaps, but out-of-process use for a template, and unnecessary mechanism given the rarity of new destroyer classes. Maralia (talk) 19:02, 25 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:Fossil Pokémon

 * 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. Garion96 (talk) 09:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

No longer used due to the individual Pokémon species being merged into lists. -sesuPRIME talk • contribs 17:43, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as an unused and obsoleted template. Since there is no practical way of incorporating this template across the various lists of Pokémon, there is no reason to keep this around. –Black Falcon (Talk) 01:33, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. MelicansMatkin (talk) 02:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Unused. Wasnt tagged so we forgot it was there. lol --Blake (talk) 02:51, 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:Skateboarding Videos

 * 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. Garion96 (talk) 09:32, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Articles are only indirectly related. There is already Category:Skateboarding videos, which makes this redundant. kollision (talk) 12:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Probably doesn't need its own template SallyRide (talk) 23:00, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per Template namespace: "Templates should not be used to create lists of links to other articles when a category or a See also list can perform the same function." When a topic does not even merit a head article ("skateboarding videos") and does not consist of a finite, defined set of members, as is the case here, then a category is generally superior to a template. –Black Falcon (Talk) 01:31, 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:WikiProject Horse breeds

 * 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. Garion96 (talk) 09:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Deprecated, orphaned (minus a handful of archived talk pages.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:16, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as "redundant to a better-designed template": WikiProject Horse breeds is now a task force of WikiProject Equine, so there is no sense in having two different project banners. –Black Falcon (Talk) 01:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 *  Probably OK Delete if you orphaned it across all the articles that used it, WPEQ should be OK with this one going bye-bye. Give it a few days, one of our WPEQ mainstays, Dana is not able to check in real often, I think she'll be OK with it, but if she's OK with it, I think the others are.  Montanabw (talk) 04:29, 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.