< August 11	August 13 >

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 debate was Delete Rjd0060 (talk) 15:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Teen pop (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

PoV template, no real criteria. Are Pop-Rap and soft rock really forms of teen pop? Are Jive Records and Hollywood Records teen-pop labels? (I doubt it for the latter; Big Kenny of Big & Rich was once on the label). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Relisted from August 6 since nobody voted. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or rename USA-centric. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 17:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rework or Delete The Teen Pop article provides references which appear to establish encyclopedic nature of the concept, however neither seem to provide useful criteria for inclusion in any linkbox; only illustrative examples are given. This would make any such linkbox original research. A banner on the page and a comment on the talk page indicate someone thinks the article is under-referenced; perhaps the author can find other references with better criteria or specifically mentioning other genres as sub-genres of teen pop? Personally I think it's more likely such genres partially overlap due to their diverse criteria – some but not all soft rock could be classified as teen pop etc.. I'm no expert in the field and am not aware of any history here, but categories might be more suited to this? --Rogerb67 (talk) 23:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This template is definitely original research. Brilliant Pebble (talk) 00:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - original research. Bart133 ^{t c @ How's my driving?} 01:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Without definite criteria to fulfill, it is OR. - DigitalC (talk) 05:09, 14 August 2008 (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.

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 debate was Delete. No prejudice on their recreation if a substantial number of these articles are ever created, but at the moment they are all way ahead of their time.... Happy‑melon 09:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Winston Salem Warthogs roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This roster consists of 31 redlinks and 2 bluelinks. As this is a low-level (A-class) baseball club, it is very unlikely that there will be articles added because these players will not reach the notability standards. — Metros (talk) 17:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating these class-A rosters for the same issue:

Template:Winston-Salem Warthogs roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) (2 blue, and a duplicate of the other Warthogs roster, basically)

Template:Kinston Indians roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) (4 bluelinks--one of which is a redirect)

Template:Myrtle Beach Pelicans roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) (6 blue)

Template:Salem_Avalanche_roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) (2 blue) Metros (talk) 17:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per notability standards. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 17:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• It is for informational purposes, why should it be deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by JPN366 (talk • contribs) 23:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia templates are for organization and navigation of articles, not for collections of non-articles. Metros (talk) 23:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any article dedicated to a minor league baseball team should have an up to date roster. If that is the logic, then all rosters on all minor league baseball team articles should be removed. Why single any out? It is useful information related to each team. The roster is relevant to the article about the team. The player names do not necessarily need to be links. It's not fair to single any out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.12.47.115 (talk) 03:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC) Delete the duplicate, it was created accidentally, keep the up to date version. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.12.47.115 (talk) 03:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Commment: I fail to see the use of this template, other than as a roster. Just because the article should have a roster, does not mean it should have a template. - DigitalC (talk) 06:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As long as the roster information remains, that is all that matters. But, if you apply that principal to this article, it should be applied to all minor league baseball team articles. There are many that have roster templates, there is no need to single out only a few. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.12.181.110 (talk) 08:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep this. It's a navbox and should be used as a navbox, the argument there is no notability results in the deletion of the article not the template! The red links can easly be corrected, write some articles and use the rooster navbox template in it and let wikifacebookmyspace do its work. If players are not notable in your opinion, delete the red links. Thank you (I don't want to start a discussion of the notability of this team) Sebastian scha. (talk) 09:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then the template would still be two bluelinks. We don't need templates to navigate through two articles. Metros (talk) 11:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First excuse my bad English I'm not nativ, but who says we (wiki) don't need a navbox with two blue articles and the possibility for happy editors to expand this? This template is really fresh and maybe there are notable players. I have absolutly no knowledge of this game and don't even know the rules, but my opinion is mark this template as watched, and if in a few weeks or month there is no change, delete it. Sebastian scha. (talk) 12:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

THe articles won't be written because the subjects are not notable. Metros (talk) 12:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never? I don't know, maybe sometime somewhere ... No serious, sure we can't write or plan for the future, but I don't see a problem with this template. But if you want to delete so hard, make sure the rooster is given on all the existing pages which needed it and then you can delete it with my unimportant protest. Sebastian scha. (talk) 12:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will the same principal be applied to all minor league teams then? It seems arbitrary to single out Winston-Salem for "notability" when you have so many minor league teams with roster templates. "Notability" is subjective. There are people who would read the Warthogs article and the names would be "notable" to them. If Wikipedia is a source of information, then why go out of the way to eliminate information that is relevant to an article? The roster information needs to remain no matter what because it is relevant to the team's article. If you're that determined to eliminate the template, that's fine. Although, it doesn't seem fair to decide what is and isn't "notable." That defeats the purpose of being a source of information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JPN366 (talk • contribs) 18:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so having my house as an entry would be add to the source of information you want Wikipedia to be, but see WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Also, give us some examples for those other minor league teams with roster templates. I'm just interested to see how many blue/red links they have.Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 01:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look in the category for this rooster and you will find all the other red links. But my point is that the information should be in a readable and good version. If you don't like red links so delete them (as said above and done below I think ;-) Sebastian scha. (talk) 13:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge info to their team's article then delete - The templates has useful info, but they serve no purpose other then to link a few amount of articles together. Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 01:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All I am concerned about is that the roster information remains. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.12.103.132 (talk) 01:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The template was deleted and replaced with just the roster information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.12.103.132 (talk) 02:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not progress. Now the roster is in one long column, instead of three with the template. Spark240 (talk) 06:55, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just keep the template format, but remove the red links (not the information, just the nonfunctional links) Spark240 (talk) 06:57, 16 August 2008 (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.

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 debate was Delete - used on only two pages, contains only those two pages as links, and both pages contain the information in other forms elsewhere on the page. --Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 22:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:AKP Leaders (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Incomplete and serves no function. We have the category system for this. Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 17:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No we don't. Each party gets its own navbox (consider the US republican party). There is no pint in deleting this navbox. The navbox should contain other articles relevant to the party in question. -- Cat ^chi? 18:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

We have a navbox for Republican party leaders? --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 19:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, but we have something similar, see Template:USRepPresNominees, and Template:USRepVicePresNominees(2nd one debatable).—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilikepie2221 (talk • contribs) Aug 14, 2008

• Delete - Serves no purpose as the articles already link to each other in a viewable spot.(e.g. not the bottom) Feel free to recreate if another leader emerges as IMO 2 links (not including the top) are OK unless its a special situation. Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 01:15, 15 August 2008 (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.

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 debate was Withdrawn Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 03:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This template, that links to World Aero Data, is currently being used on 1,700 pages as an external link or a source. The material it links to was sourced from the DAFIF but as of the end of 2006 the DAFIF was no longer available for public view. This means that the WAD is no longer being updated as can be seen at Sainte-Anne-des-Monts Aerodrome (WAD), St. Catharines/Niagara District Airport (WAD) and Ponoka Industrial (Labrie Field) Airport update 1 & Ponoka Industrial (Labrie Field) Airport update 2 (WAD). What was originally a link to good source of airport information has become outdated and no longer of use. — CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 05:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep because all wiki airports pages written prior 2007 are sourced from this, I think. (Then deserted the data never changes, the source is correct.) If you (or anybody else) change the data, simply delete the template. Until it's orphaned, let it be. Greetings Sebastian scha. (talk) 10:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If any abandoned airports are being referenced from World Aero Data then they still can be, by linking as with any other source. Having the template around will just encourage editors to use it and source current airports with possible incorrect information. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 11:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, it appears to be used in the External links section at least in the articles I randomly clicked. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, especially not old links. If the template is being used in the reference section, it could be subst'd prior to deletion to preserve those. --Dual Freq (talk) 11:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the template is deleted, then it should first be subst'd in ALL articles. Many airport articles still don't use inline references or even have a references section, so the link is still a reference even though it appears under the "External links" heading. -- Zyxw (talk) 12:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. A better solution is to start replacing the World Aero Data links with a more accurate and/or more current references, such as a link to the Aeronautical Information Publication. However, in cases where the AIP is not available, the two-year old DAFIF data is still a good alternative since coordinates and elevation don't change and most airports haven't extended or added runways since 2006. I see no reason to delete the template at this time. -- Zyxw (talk) 12:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but mark as deprecated - A possibly outdated source is better than no source at all. It should be replaced with up-to-date sources where possible, but wholesale removal is unwarranted. Mr.Z-man 17:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdraw nomination Mr.Z-man's comments made me realise that the template just needs dating as is done with the ((CFS)). I've upated the WAD and GCM templates to reflect the last known updates of the DAFIF. The template no longer requires deletion. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 20:07, 12 August 2008 (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.