Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 October 19
| < October 18 | October 20 > |
|---|
October 19
[edit]- 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. Airplaneman ✈ 01:38, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Links to a single commercial web site. No possible place where it would be correctly transcluded. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - also unused. --Bsherr (talk) 18:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- Comment it had been used in Drunk driving in the United States, but I deleted it from there as it was used as a reference, and is clearly not a WP:RS. If a valid reference could be found, it might be usable in more than one article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Even if it was used, no need to have it in a template. -- WOSlinker (talk) 22:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Unused and totally useless, where do we need a template only containing a single link? DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 09:07, 24 October 2010 (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.
- 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. Airplaneman ✈ 01:40, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Appears to be cruft. 386 Google hits only, with the vast majority of the hits (perhaps close to all?) being Wikipedia mirrors. There is a "history" note on the talk page of the template that appears to be unsourced assertion of self-importance. The four scientists listed here may be sufficiently notable (at least I am not requesting that the articles on them to be deleted), but there is nothing to suggest that they form a notable grouping as a grouping. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 10:33, 19 October 2010 (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.