Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 January 19

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 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).

The result of the discussion was relist to Jan 27Primefac (talk) 02:24, 27 January 2016 (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).
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).

The result of the discussion was delete. delldot ∇. 00:45, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This template was created less than a month ago and is only transcluded on 1 page. This seems unnecessary as it will probably not be used enough to be retained when this template can be created through customizing the parameters in {{Retired}}. In addition, the wording of this template makes it seem redundant to {{Not around}}. Steel1943 (talk) 20:10, 19 January 2016 (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).
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).

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 01:54, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not notable. WWE doesn't recognize it as a large feat. CrashUnderride 12:17, 19 January 2016 (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).
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).

The result of the discussion was relist to Jan 28Primefac (talk) 05:18, 28 January 2016 (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).
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).

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 01:46, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per a previous discussion, video game chronology templates generally aren't considered useful, unless it isn't clear how they are chronologically set. In this case, it's not needed as there is no confusion. Soetermans. T / C 11:00, 19 January 2016 (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).
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).

The result of the discussion was userfy to User:Dirtlawyer1/FHSAA's All-Century Team. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 01:38, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This template denotes an obscure honor that is not an defining characteristic for its recipients. No stand-alone article exists for this subject. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:13, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1. Bill Buchalter, "Deacon Jones anchors list of Florida's top 100 high school football greats," Orlando Sentinel (December 5, 2007)
2. John Patton, "FHSAA's top 100 Florida players," The Gainesville Sun (December 5, 2007)
3. "FHSAA's All-Century Team," The Ledger (December 13, 2007)
4. Roy Fuoco, "Polk's Lewis, Riley Selected to FHSAA's All-Century Team," The Ledger (December 13, 2007)
5. Joey Johnston, "Those Were The Days," The Tampa Tribune (December 15, 2007)
6. "Fla. player of century: Emmitt Smith," The Gainesville Sun (December 16, 2007)
7. "FHSAA Top 100," The Florida Times-Union (December 24, 2007)
8. "The Best Out of a Hundred," The Florida Times-Union (December 24, 2007)
This all-time team got a lot of ink in Florida newspapers in 2007; these articles are just what comes up with a simple Google search -- no Google News Archive, no Newspapers.com, no NewspaperArhcive.com. And these are just what I would call significant coverage -- there is a lot more in the nature of passing mentions in articles about the individual honorees. Keep in mind that about half of the major newspapers in the state of Florida are buried behind paywalls, including the The Fort Myers News-Press, The Miami Herald, The Naples Daily News, The Palm Beach Post and St. Petersburg Times. I can find more if you want me to do so. There has also been continuing mentions of the All-Century Team every time a newspaper publishes a retrospective on a player on this list -- perhaps not rising to the level of "significant," but evidencing the continuing noteworthiness of this all-time team. Building a stand-alone article/list will not lack for sources, and I am not advocating keeping and/or recreating the navbox. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 09:58, 19 January 2016 (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).