Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 June 11

< June 10	June 12 >

June 11

Template:Michael Chapman

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. --BDD (talk) 22:45, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Michael Chapman (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:NENAN, directed only three films. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:55, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete, directed four films, but only three have articles as indicated. not currently active, and not primarily a director. Frietjes (talk) 17:13, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It has only 3 core links (plus the head article), so it fails WP:NENAN's minimum of 5 core links + head article.
The head article should of course be incorporated in a navbox if one exists, but it is no reason to justify the creation of a navbox. The head article is always prominently linked from the article anyway, so a navbox is not needed to get to it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:33, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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:Jaguares de Chiapas squad

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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:54, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Jaguares de Chiapas squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The team no longer exists, it dissolved last month GoPurple 'n Gold₂₄ 20:37, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 06:07, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I thought they had just moved rather than were dissolved. There is a discussion about this on the wp:footy talk page. Fenix down (talk) 07:02, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Project concensus for merged/sold franchises?. Giant Snowman 08:47, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:52, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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:The Parlotones

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 no consensus Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:48, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The Parlotones (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Has potential, but fails WP:NENAN The Banner talk 10:30, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep, five total links is enough. Frietjes (talk) 15:33, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It has only 4 core links (plus the head article), so it fails WP:NENAN's minimum of 5 core links + head article.
The head article should of course be incorporated in a navbox if one exists, but it is no reason to justify the creation of a navbox. The head article is always prominently linked from the article anyway, so a navbox is not needed to get to it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:33, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:25, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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:Tim Sköld

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 no consensus Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:47, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Tim Sköld (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Fails WP:NENAN The Banner talk 22:01, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It has only 3 core links (plus the head article), so it fails WP:NENAN's minimum of 5 core links + head article.
The head article should of course be incorporated in a navbox if one exists, but it is no reason to justify the creation of a navbox. The head article is always prominently linked from the article anyway, so a navbox is not needed to get to it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:33, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep, actually has four albums, which is enough by my criteria. Frietjes (talk) 16:54, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:04, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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:Satariel

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 no consensus Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:46, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Satariel (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Fails WP:NENAN The Banner talk 22:07, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep, has four albums, which is enough. Frietjes (talk) 23:28, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It has only 4 core links (plus the head article), so it fails WP:NENAN's minimum of 5 core links + head article.
The head article should of course be incorporated in a navbox if one exists, but it is no reason to justify the creation of a navbox. The head article is always prominently linked from the article anyway, so a navbox is not needed to get to it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:30, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:01, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No valid rationale for deletion. WP:NENAN is an essay of unspecified relevance. It does not discuss deletion in any way. In its navbox it is categorised under "construction", not "deletion". The fact that the essay encourages larger templates used in fewer articles should not be misconstrued as a policy for deletion. Thincat (talk) 13:31, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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:Spitalfield

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. --BDD (talk) 22:49, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Spitalfield (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Fails WP:NENAN The Banner talk 21:34, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep, has four albums, which is enough. Frietjes (talk) 23:20, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The threshold of WP:NENAN is five relevant links. Not four. The Banner talk 23:32, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - and, given that NENAN is an essay, I choose to go with my own criteria which includes checking Spitalfield#Discography. Frietjes (talk) 16:32, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It has only 4 core links (plus the head article), so it fails WP:NENAN's minimum of 5 core links + head article.
The head article should of course be incorporated in a navbox if one exists, but it is no reason to justify the creation of a navbox. The head article is always prominently linked from the article anyway, so a navbox is not needed to get to it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:19, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:58, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

on second thought, this one can go, since the previous/next links in the album infoboxes connect all the album articles, and no band member has an article, and there are no other links. Frietjes (talk) 23:10, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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 Whale

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 no consensus Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:50, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Said the Whale (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Fails WP:NENAN. The Banner talk 23:06, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It has only 4 core links (plus the head article), so it fails WP:NENAN's minimum of 5 core links + head article.
The head article should of course be incorporated in a navbox if one exists, but it is no reason to justify the creation of a navbox. The head article is always prominently linked from the article anyway, so a navbox is not needed to get to it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:19, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete, the first album link is a redirect, so only four total links. Frietjes (talk) 15:44, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just added two missing links, but the Christmas album was redirected, so still a weak delete. Frietjes (talk) 16:45, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - navigates between five articles (Said the Whale, Howe Sounds/Taking Abalonia, Little Mountain (album), Islands Disappear, Heavy Ceiling) which is enough for me. NENAN is just an essay, as is WP:ANOEP. As both can't be right, we might as well use neither and instead use some WP:COMMONSENSE. The purpose of a navigation box is to navigate between linked articles. Does this do that? In my eyes, yes. Giant Snowman 13:42, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:02, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply @GiantSnowman. Yes, the purpose of a navbox is to navigate between linked articles. But when the set of such articles is small, the navbox is just superfluous clutter. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:32, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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:News Corp Digital Media

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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:43, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:News Corp Digital Media (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Company is effectively defunct now (and was re-named, see the article). All of these links are covered in the Fox Entertainment Group template. ViperSnake151 Talk 21:01, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete seem to now be redundant to the FEG section of Template:News Corporation. Frietjes (talk) 23:44, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.