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 to delete. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:40, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox pseudoscience (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Rather than containing facts and statistics per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (infoboxes), this infobox templates is to present POV information and the limit on space in the template prevents complying with WP:NPOV policy. This template is a way for some editors to draw special, isolated attention to their view on the topic rather than have that view presented alongside other material in the text of the articles. Forking POV content into its own limited-spaced template within an article works against resolving disagreements by consensus. If obvious, the lack of scientific status of any topic should be evident from the first paragraph of the article. If debatable, its scientific status should be conveyed in more depth in the article. Any navigation provided by this template to the Pseudoscience article already is achieved by Template:Pseudoscience. The wrongness of this pejorative template is especially acute in view of the ongoing Arbitration Committee's Pseudoscience Discretionary Sanctions. There is no need for this infobox template. This template cannot comply with content policy. Deleting this template will remove a device that can be used by some to inflame others passion. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:10, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Not all pseudoscience articles are contentious; if this template is inappropriate for a specific article then it should be removed after discussion at that article's talk page. For non-contentious articles, this template compliments the lead paragraph and fulfills the purpose of an infobox per the MOS. VQuakr (talk) 21:09, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete One the one hand, I think the use of the template can justified: For an example of proper use for an article which is not a hot-button issue here, see Astrology. There are three potential problems with the use of this template: first, the heading "Pseudoscientific concepts" as possibly prejudicial -- the overwhelming number of its uses are where the material is undoubtedly pseudoscience. & therefore compatible with arbcom. Second, the use of the template on any particular page,-- but arguments for its use on any particular article belong on the article talk page. Third, arguments regarding the wording of the "claims" section--this too can be discussed in the article. But on the other hand, the argument above that it is unnecessary and just provides one more thing to argue about seems fairly reasonable also. The role of the template seems to be to summarize the lead paragraph. In my experience, trying to summarize things into an overly brief compass is a frequent source of trouble, and a remarkable number of arguments in all fields have arisen because of efforts to do so, and many good editors have been lost to us as a result. . As I said in the previous TfD, "We have wasted too much time debating these. Debates on such tags are essentially lame--we would do better writing the articles to achieve the provision of sourced information." (I was notified of this discussion on my use talk page,but I reviewed the matter afresh before commenting, and only looked at the end to see what my previous comment was) DGG ( talk ) 21:41, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There is such a thing as unambiguous pseudoscience, and there's nothing wrong with labelling it as such. There are some articles where this is the most appropriate infobox. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 22:41, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, if the categorization is in dispute, that can be decided on a case-by-case. Useful summarization; what an infobox is supposed to do. Abeg92contribs 21:35, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 23:49, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It should only be used when there is consensus to describe the subject as pseudoscience. As to offending anybody, we don't give a flying f@$K about that. We use pejoratives all the time because RS use them. If a subject is considered by RS as pseudoscience or stupid, we aren't allowed to use editorializing to whitewash the matter. We must reproduce what the RS say, offense be damned. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:27, 1 March 2011 (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 discussion was speedy keep – no point in deleting the template while the CSD is in force. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:23, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Db-a10 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

If there is a duplicate, then a merge should take place, not a delete. Japanese knotweed (talk) 12:46, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep - This is for recently created articles that duplicate an existing topic and add nothing to the existing article. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:51, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I notified the relevant talk page of the CSD Guideline at WT:CSD#Courtesy notice. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:57, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep since nominator misunderstands purpose of the tag. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:19, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I had my doubts about this deletion reason initially, but most of the uses have been very correct, for naïve attempts at unnecessary articles DGG ( talk ) 21:42, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep Sorry if this sounds bureaucratic, but this template is required for application of wp:CSD#a10 and can therefor not by deleted while the policy itself remains active. At the same time this TFD can't change policy. The best course of action seems to be to close this TFD and move the discussion to wt:CSD. Yoenit (talk) 21:56, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

• Keep: Unless I missed some huge recent discussion at the Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion policies talk page about CSD A10 being invalid there is no reason for this to have been nominated and sent here. In doing a rough search this discussion from 2009 turns up the most recent major discussion that could have seen this sent here. However in 2009 there was no consensus whatsoever to repeal A10 at this time. The most recent "larger" debate was in February 2010, one year ago, and was that A10 "should be tightened up a bit." Nominating a policy or a policy related template for deletion is not something to be done lightly. Soundvisions1 (talk) 22:00, 26 February 2011 (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 discussion was Delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:39, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Current U.S. First Spouses (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

There's a little background that needs to be established, so please bear with me. I first became aware of this navbox template during an AfD for one of its then-listed first spouses, Lou Rell. The AfD was brought about by another editor because of the lack of notability of Lou Rell having his own Wikipedia article for no reason other than just being the husband of then-Connecticut Governor Jodi Rell. Other less than notable first spouses that had their own articles faced similar AfDs, with additional non-notable first spouses only listed as red-linked last names on the template. Since red links encourage articles to be created, this led me to ask a simple question during the AfD: "Why does something such as the navbox ((Current U.S. First Spouses)) exist if articles on first spouses are generally considered inappropriate?" I later concluded with the following opinion: "[U]nless it is completely appropriate for all 50 first spouses to have their own articles, a navbox promoting the names of a multitude of non-notable people should probably be the next thing [to be deleted]." Over the many months since that AfD, I have thought about and watched this navbox contemplating if I would ever put it through a TfD or not. With the current slate of first spouses being comprised of 40 red links, seven blue links to articles, four blue links to redirects, and five having no spouse, my mind is made up: A template listing the names of people of which only a small handful will ever meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines ought not exist. This template, as interesting and as good-intentioned as it may be, just encourages the creation of articles of non-notable people. --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 03:47, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator. This will always be mostly redlinks and redirects. Even if there are blue links to actually notable articles, the subjects are usually notable for being a judge or something, not for being a first spouse. -LtNOWIS (talk) 11:40, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. This is an example of a template which duplicates the function of Category:Spouses of United States state governors. Horologium (talk) 13:17, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a list would be more appropriate here, since it can record the name, occupation, and a few public facts of people who would not otherwise merit an article.--Scott Mac 19:03, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom and since a template like that will encourage editors to create stubs to "fill" the redlinks. Additionally, I agree with Scott MacDonald (talk · contribs) that maybe a list would be better. Reaper Eternal (talk) 22:49, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Template isn't necessary for a few. The list suffices and the template isn't needed to navigate a bunch of non-existent articles as well.--NortyNort (Holla) 02:32, 27 February 2011 (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.