< April 20	April 22 >

April 21

Template:RonPaul

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 keep Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also: Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 April 23#Template:Ron Paul.

Template:Ron Paul was previously deleted, and this is a sidebar, so it should also be deleted.. - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 23:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (for now) I can see it being useful in a T:Navbox. I would however like to know of its previous TfD nomination, if it has one (I would presume it does?). --Izno (talk) 00:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The template that goes at the bottom of pages was deleted. There is no need for a sidebar for a congressman like Ron Paul. Mitt Romney's and Rudy Giuliani's sidebars were also deleted. - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 19:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - You've linked two templates here; obviously the navbox was recreated (which I believe to be unworthy of deletion). However, I support deletion for ((RonPaul)) (note difference). --Izno (talk) 22:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete, i.e., keep or merge. Believe navigation of Ron Paul articles is absolutely necessary, and time should be given to permit the editors to work out the best method by a less strictured process than the inappropriately overburdened XFD pages. Believe this should be closed as out-of-process so that my merge proposal between the two templates can be discussed less heatedly. I am also trying to determine why Terrier's comments make no mention of the fact that Template:Ron Paul was happily restored a week or two after deletion and has remained until today, despite two attempts by Terrier to CSD it, one of which happened a minute after this TFD (and, had it been successful, would have made the reliance on old consensus harder to spot). It seems a blind spot to refer to the consensus arising from a disputed (5-2) TFD in December (Skomorokh found it) as if it both undercuts a later four-month consensus to keep, and undergirds two identical CSDs based (without evidence) on substantial identity to the deleted version. JJB 03:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- A sidebar for Ron Paul is not necessary, especially when it is placed on many unrelated articles. Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney's sidebars were deleted and they were much more notable than a congressman from Texas, who has barely done anything notable during his time in the U.S. House. - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 19:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I haven't yet decided on keep or merge. But I have decided and documented that you are not using proper WP procedure for addressing this concern; for one, you are not expressing your concerns at the merge proposal. You also betray strong POV by saying that a current candidate for the Republican presidential nomination amounts to someone "who has barely done anything notable". I have disclosed my potential COI at my user page and worked hard to steer clear of it becoming actual COI. You would do well to comment on how your "McCain supporter" userbox relates to COI in this content area. Diligence for the diligent. JJB 19:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment: I have notified the other editors of these templates at this point. JJB 20:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Keep This template and the other are currently in the middle of Merge discussion. So this deletion comment is largely moot. Apart from that, Ron Paul clearly deserves his own template given the number of articles on Wikipedia that are related to him. No different from other templates for notable individuals. Buspar (talk) 02:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to admins: the above editor was Canvased by User:John J. Bulten (a.k.a. JJB) - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 20:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - See my comment. JJB 03:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  - Comment It looks as though User:John J. Bulten (a.k.a. JJB) has been canvassing several other Ron Paul fans not only to this discussion, but also to other related ones. - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 20:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - See my comment. JJB 03:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
    - Please do not assume bad faith, Diligent Terrier (also, NPA; calling him a "Ron Paul fan" is insulting). You are welcome to provide evidence that he canvassed people which have not edited the template previously, but I would prefer to assume in good faith that he only added a message to the people who have edited Template:Ron Paul. Furthermore, he added the "This template is up for deletion" message to the template (which is, in essence, the same), so unless you will provide specific diffs to the contrary, your accusations of canvassing are baseless. --Izno (talk) 21:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - JJB contacted those who have been involved in editing the template and did so in a neutral manner, saying only that the templates were up for deletion and that they should participate if interested. He did NOT tell others how to vote, only made them aware of the discussion. This is a case when canvasing is acceptable, per WP:CANVAS. I agree with Izno: Terrier appears to be assuming bad faith. Also, Terrier's implication that "Ron Paul fan" would somehow be linked to being biased is indeed insulting. No different than saying a Muslim or a Jew or an African-American is unable to edit Wikipedia neutrally. Buspar (talk) 21:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be technical, I wrote one message that both Ron Paul and RonPaul were up for deletion, and I sent it only to the eight editors of the two templates, as adverted above and in full compliance with WP:CANVAS, since the templates are similar and proposed for merge; I made minimal adjustments to the insufficient notification boilerplate. In one other AFD (nominated by guess who) I also sent a templated message to the 20 editors of the article (7 were IPs). I think consulting the consensus at that AFD will prove illuminating for anyone still confused about this issue. Yes, I suppose "fan" does mean "fanatic" and could be taken negatively. JJB 02:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Early consensus at Template talk:Ron Paul between involved editors Buspar, MantisEars, and myself is to merge RonPaul into Ron Paul; SteveSims would keep both. While these comments are not precisely similar to !votes here of merge by MantisEars and keep by SteveSims, they certainly merit consideration in themselves, given the out-of-process nom. JJB 16:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be a bit mistaken about what all happened here, Buspar. I noticed that JJB was cross posting to all of the editors of the template. This is called canvassing, which is discouraged. Anyone who edits a template or article is very likely to favor keeping it in an AfD discussion. I'm completely for notifying the initial contributor, but most respected editors will agree that what John J. Bulten (a.k.a. JJB) did is canvassing. You also need keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a game; a few comments you made on JJB's talk page seem to constitute how to play "WikiPolitics" [1], where you also completely misrepresented what I said, making it look like I made the personal attack. WP:AGF is another page you might want to have a look at; your original comment here was rather aggressive at an established editor such as myself. Keep these suggestions in mind when editing in the future. I'd be especially careful when talking about what other editors have done. What you said about me on John J. Bulten's "friends" page was completely false, and is ... well ... lying. So start assuming good faith, and when dealing with established editors, I would suggest you make sure you at least give them a chance to give their side of the situation before misrepresenting their comments, or flat out lying about the situation. Happy editing in the future! - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 23:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I would request you also assume good faith, Terrier. Your reply is more than moderately harsh, and seems to indicate that you think yourself better than any whom have commented here, due to the fact that you see yourself as an "established editor". I feel you are taking this a little seriously for a template deletion discussion, Terrier. I would advise you to take a breather for a minute (and any others who would comment in response to Terrier). Your response seemed out of time and place; it would have been better to respond to his comment on his talk page, in a much more neutral tone. Cheers also to your future editing. --Izno (talk) 23:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As other people have pointed out, there's nothing wrong with that. Per OWN, the other editors no more own the article than the initial contributor does. In that regard, their contributions are all considered to be equal. Also, what has been done here is not canvassing, and I strongly suggest you review the relevant policy regarding guidelines so that in the future you don't make such spurious allegations. Canvassing would be going to every person who had a userbox saying "This user supports Ron Paul" and saying "Hey, you should vote keep in this deletion discussion". What he did was go to the editors of the template and say "Hey, just to let you know, there's a deletion discussion for something you contributed to here.", which is perfectly in line with policy. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 14:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nomination is out of process and in the middle of discussions for mergers. Nominator should have waited for that to clear up before taking this step; we should wait for a stable merged version before makind decisions like this. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 22:12, 27 April 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.

Template:Logo fur and just about every other boilerplate FUR template

The result of the debate was keep Woohookitty^Woohoo! 04:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This, and every other one of those generic rationale templates is a blatant violation of Wikipedia policy. The guidelines state that the rationale has to have information specific to each use. I don't think a generic boilerplate for a logo rationale can be a valid FUR for every use of an image, even if it is highly detailed, and this goes for every other boilerplate too. Every situation is unique, and I don't think having these boilerplates are a good idea. So today, I am being bold and nominating them all. — ViperSnake151 18:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are some classes of images that are always going to be non-free, always going to be valid for use under the fair use policy, and always going to be kept. Why make people write bespoke rationales for each one? Stifle (talk) 20:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the specific information that is being looked for in the guidelines is found by filling in the variables in the template. -Djsasso (talk) 20:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not every situation is unique, several of them (such as, for instance, football logos) are so similar they don't really need a original rationale which would instead happen to be almost the same in all cases. --Angelo (talk) 21:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (snowball). This issue has been discussed many times and there is consensus for using these templates. There are well over 10,000 images that rely on Logo fur, and absolutely nothing wrong with the template. Our guideline suggests using a template, and that main template has several tens of thousands of uses, perhaps over 100,000 by now. The notion that we should not use templates for constructing use rationales is unsupported by policy, the Foundation, or practice. It is a small minority position here. If anyone wants to argue that policy should change, the right place is the policy page, not by proposing to delete a template used 10,000 times.Wikidemo (talk) 22:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per Wikidemo. Proposing to delete a highly used template is not a way to discuss policy. Flibirigit (talk) 21:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Extremely useful. Following the rules for inconvenience's sake is not a good road to go down. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 04:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikidemo. I'm also curious how this is a "generic boilerplate." Once parameters are filled in, each image will have a unique FUR. The point of the template is to inform the uploader what information is required to justify FU. Reso lute 17:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per others. - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 19:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Obviously, per all the above. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per everybody else. Jheald (talk) 13:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm pretty sure this has been discussed before. The nominator seems to just really not like templates, but consensus is clearly that templates are useful and helpful, especially when dealing with copyright rationales. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 05:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:1915 Vancouver Millionaires

The result of the debate was delete Maxim_(talk) 10:56, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've considered all arguments in this debate, but I feel there is rough agreement to delete in this case. The points argued by Djsasso have tilted the debate.

These roster templates for championship teams have been tfd'd and deleted numerous times now. They are a clutter on player pages and there is already a list of who was on that years team on the years page for that particular team. Players liked Henri Richard would have 11 for the various Stanley Cup teams he was on and Igor Larionov would have 3 for Stanley Cups and 3 for medals just as an example. I only managed to find four but I am pretty sure there are more TFD #1, TFD #2, TFD #3 and TFD #4. Not only is it a clutter on those pages but the players that have played with the particular player is not defining for that player. — Djsasso (talk) 15:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The project has not used these to this date, but other sport projects do. See discussion at WT:HOCKEY#Cup_champion_boxes Alaney2k (talk) 15:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that they do, and will probably be the source of some more TFD's in the future as its been pretty clear in the past that these templates are not helpfull to the article and cause clutter and the players a player played with in any given season is not defining for that player. -Djsasso (talk) 15:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You made a point at the other location about how many montreal would have. If it was collapsed, it would not be that bad. One location for the list of championship rosters would be encyclopedic, although maybe not in this template format. Maybe a simple 'List of' article that is sub to the Canadiens article. I do prefer the look of these templates compared to what we do in the Hockey project, though. But definitely not in the players' pages. Alaney2k (talk) 16:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That being said, if there is only one place or even only two places that each of these would belong on there is no point to it being a template. You might as well just put the code for it on that particular page. -Djsasso (talk) 16:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, at most there would only be a need for one template, with content and color options for the various teams. Alaney2k (talk) 16:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I mean is all you would have to do is put the underlying code for the template on the team page instead of transcluding a template. Just put the code directly on the article. But I don't really see the need for this on any page except, as Resolute mentions below, the season page which already has a ream roster on it. -Djsasso (talk) 17:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom. Clutters the article, and the teammates a player played with in any given year is non defining. The only place I can think of where a list of players on a certain team is useful is the season article, and that will already contian the roster. Reso lute 17:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. I don't see the clutter argument holding any water, as (as stated above), in cases were there are a number of navboxes, they can be collapsed into one. Regarding Resolute's argument of being non-defining, I think it is exactly the opposite. If the timeplate in question were a random season, Template:1992 Hartford Whalers for example, I would see the point, but the fact that a player played on a championship team in a major league is defining ant notable. I just don't see any place where these templates detract from an article. Also, I just don't see why hockey is an island onto itself when baseball, american football and basketball has readily adopted similar navboxes without incident. Seems more like a personal preference issue rather than a content issue. Thanks. - Masonpatriot (talk) 18:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The player being on a team that won the cup is defining and is why he is a category for being a champion. The fact he played with those specific players is not defining. Hockey isn't an island unto itself. Those other sports have had issues with them as well. But no one has taken the time to make sure they get deleted. I normally don't touch other sports articles much as my hands are full enough with one. But I would easily put up the other templates as well. Templates like these are often used to make users feel like they are contributing to an article by adding them when really they haven't improved the article at all. If anything they have detracted from it as these sorts of nav boxes often discourage users from expanding articles. -Djsasso (talk) 18:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I see your point, but, to be brief, I just disagree regarding whether or not those specific grouping are defining, notable and whether they add to the player's notability. I do have a strong objection to your insinuation that these templates are so "users feel like they are contributing". It's fine to have a disagreement and discussion, but do not demean other editors who disagree and/or contribute in different ways. Next, you state that these navboxes "often discourage users from expanding articles." Any evidence at all to back up that claim? Also, you claim that editors working on other sports agree with you, but there is nothing to support that, given the existence and non-deletion of the naxboxes directly contradicts your statement. Anyway, I don't want to get into a pissing match (which too many of these end up in), but I unverified claims and putting down other editors shouldn't be part of this discussion. Thanks - Masonpatriot (talk) 19:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Wasn't intended to be a put down. Obviously you put alot of work into the templates and that is beyond question. But I do find that instead of adding the relavent information into the player article as prose, people slap on a template instead which is obviously the less desirable of the two. If this weren't a well known thing across wiki then people wouldn't constantly be trying to stop the rampant increase in navboxes etc that have happened over the past year to all sorts of articles not just sports ones. Say a non-regular user comes across an article that has a template on it indicating their championship team membership, yet doesn't have any prose to indicate membership on that team, do you think they would take the time to add that prose to the article or just assume that oh the information is there in that box and not think about the fact that the article needs to have the information in prose. Or in the other situation where there is no template, do you think them not more likely to go "Hey! This guy won the cup in 1986, I need to add that to the article." As far as the continued existance goes, I don't think that contradicts anything at all. It just means either there wasn't a strong enough desire to remove them or if there was that strong desire that no one went ahead and got them deleted. Even if concensus was completely the other direction in that they really really wanted them, it would be a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguement to base it on what they liked. I note that in the previous tfd's alot of the people who said delete were not hockey editors, so its definately not just hockey editors that think they should be gone. -Djsasso (talk) 19:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment Fair enough, and I agree that if holes exist, material should be added to the article proper (and while I've done a good deal of work on the navboxes, I've done plenty work on articles themselves as well). Obviously that is a community effort and not just the job of someone adding a navbox. I think something you're missing is that the navbox attracts more editors to those pages, which increases possible contribution to those articles. I mean, if something is a stub, and you add a navbox, I think that might draw an editor or two (who otherwise wouldn't) to read and contribute to that stub, though that's purely conjecture. - Masonpatriot (talk) 19:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This information should be in categories, if at all. Stifle (talk) 20:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:CLN. I won't argue for the templates in question, but your argument is moot. --Izno (talk) 22:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. I have never understood the need for this type of navigational box. The set of articles linked from each box are not really tightly coupled, or part of a series, as what you see with a "typical" navbox. They are merely collections of players who happened to be on the same team those seasons. That does not seem to be a logical way to navigate, in my opinion. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 04:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. Championship rosters absolutely satisfy WP:N. BroadSt_Bully ^[talk] 00:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This has nothing to do with being notable. Its about whether it should be a template. The championship rosters are listed elsewhere. These templates at most belong on one page which negates the need for a template and should just be coded on that one page they belong on. -Djsasso (talk) 00:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. As already pointed out, the number of navigational boxes for certain great players will be unmanageable. Especially if similar templates are added for other kind of championship victories (i.e. European leagues, Olympics, World Championships). And I don't see the need to navigate amoung the list of players who once played on the same winning team. --Kildor (talk) 07:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This discussion reminds me of [2] [3] and [4] Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Listify the templates look like they should be combined into a list article. 70.55.86.138 (talk) 05:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment All this information is already found elsewhere. So the info itself won't be lost by ditching the templates themselves. -Djsasso (talk) 20:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment To borrow a comment from above: WP:CLN... navboxes, lists and cats are not mutually exclusive. - Masonpatriot (talk) 13:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Except that navboxes have to tie together articles that would naturally come up in the article already and be linked. These players would not normally for the most part appear in each others bio articles except for the odd exception like so and so was traded with so and so. But by no means would the entire team show up in their article. -Djsasso (talk) 14:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. My first thought was to delete, but by actually looking through them and realizing they were navigations for Stanley Cup champions, I saw the merit. I mean, winning a Stanley cup is notable, putting in a template makes sense. I don't think listifying it would work, I don't see the point of that. I also see what the deletors are saying, and it makes sense, this is really just my two cents. Wizardman 01:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Future PW

The result of the debate was delete. Will replace with future Woohookitty^Woohoo! 04:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicative of ((future sport)). Transcluded on about 20 articles. Yellowdesk (talk) 14:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Redundant and not needed. RobJ1981 (talk) 20:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wrestling PPV's are not sporting events, and the template is more accurate. Less Than Clippers 22:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If ((future sport)) is used on pro wrestling articles, there will be people removing the template because "pro wrestling isn't a real sport" (which may be true depending on your definition of sport). — Gwalla | Talk 23:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If so, don't you think that ((future)) will do the trick? --Kildor (talk) 11:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good point, ((future)) will do. — Gwalla | Talk 18:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ((future)) will suffice, though ((future sport)) will not. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 15:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The "future" template will do. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 23:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ((future)) and ((future sport)) are insufficient. Pro wrestling is unique due to the concept of kayfabe. Neither of those templates warn people not to post information that has not been "officially" released, such as information from taped shows that have not aired yet or, in extreme cases, leaked and/or speculative information that may change before it is released officially. --Kitch ^{(Talk : Contrib)} 02:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Unsourced statements, speculation or rumour are contrary to Wikipedia policy, and are subject to removal from all articles. A redundant reminder.
-- Yellowdesk (talk) 02:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If it is really necessary to tag an article for describing a future event, I believe ((future)) is sufficient. The only difference between these templates is that the wrestling template also says that we should not add information that is not based on reliable published sources. This is in fact a principle guideline of Wikipedia, and need not to be pointed out specifically for future wrestling events.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kildor (talk • contribs) 07:52, April 23, 2008
Delete redundant to ((future)) Reso lute 17:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ((future sport)) will not do, as professional wrestling isn't a sport. While ((future)) could be used, what's the harm in having a more specific template (i.e. ((future sport))? faithless (^speak) 23:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If a specific template is created for every kind of sport or event, we will end up having hundreds of templates with basically the same message. It gets quite unmanageable, and it is completely unnecessary. It is like having a variant of ((unreferenced)) saying This article about a professional wrestling event does not cite any references or sources. It makes no sense. See also some posts on Wikipedia talk:Current and future event templates about this discussion. --Kildor (talk) 07:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken, we simply disagree, no big deal. I don't see how having more specific templates is a bad thing. This reminds me of the various stub templates which number, if I'm not mistaken, in the thousands easily. Necessary? No, not really. Harmful? I don't see how. I don't feel strongly about this, but don't see why it should be deleted. faithless (^speak) 14:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would rather see the template being removed from articles than replaced with ((future)). But otherwise, I think the key message should be that it is a future event, and not that it is a wrestling event, music festival, or whatever. Having a specific template for future wrestling events may give the impression that every upcoming wrestling event should/must be tagged, and it seems like most editors do not read the rest of the message before putting it on the top of the article. --Kildor (talk) 07:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Perhaps multiple thousands on stub templates. Probably an area that has never been paid attention to. Category:Stub categories -- Yellowdesk (talk) 19:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not needed since the "future" template works great. --Maestro25 (talk) 00:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:FTL player

The result of the debate was delete Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A template with the only aim to add a website about "football rumours" in the external links section for football players. Obviously fails WP:EL, probably even WP:SPAM. If the site is not worthy to stay there, then the template should be deleted as well. Angelo (talk) 10:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - very bizarre. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 11:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless someone can show that this site is somehow worth repeatedly linking to. Terraxos (talk) 23:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think this is kinda useful. People are interested in the rumours that the papers produce and this site gives stats about rumour accuracy. Foetalstalk (talk) 14:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom BanRay 18:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KILL WITH FIRE and by steamroller, hang, draw, quarter, Wikipedia IS NOT for rumours. At all. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 19:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Current PW

The result of the debate was delete. Will replace with current. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The template, for Professional Wrestling sports events, has the same fuctionality as ((current sport)). Redundant. No artcles have the template transcluded at this time. Yellowdesk (talk) 02:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The template is non-encyclopaedic, orphaned and redundant to ((current)). --Kildor (talk) 10:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there are no articles with it on as there are no pages which fit the description of the template. It is used when Pay-Per-Views are being broadcast. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: if we keep this, should we also have templates that announce the current airing (whether pay-per-view or not) of soccer (football) playoffs, boxing events, motor sports events, skiing championships, rock concerts, and so on? I would hope not. I don't think that wikipedia is the place for this. Perhaps a television schedule web site, or sports enthusiast site. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 23:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~-like someone said on the TfD for Template:Future PW, pro wrestling is entertainment, and people may argue on whether it is a sport or not, so placing a Template:Future sport would cause commotion.--~S R S~ 19:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)--~S R S~ 19:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Use ((current)) instead, if it is not a sport! It has the very same message.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kildor (talk • contribs) 08:00, April 23, 2008

Ok Then.~S R S~ 20:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Redundant to ((Current)). Reso lute 17:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unnecessary template duplication. Terraxos (talk) 23:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Current product

The result of the debate was delete Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The template gives notice that information may be incomplete about a new product. This state of affairs is true of all Wikipedia articles, unremarkable and superflouous. If need be, and edited by many at the same time, for some momentous new product, ((current)) could be used, with its rather flexible parameters. But in general, this kind of commentary provided by the template should be merely text in the article, with citations, making the recentness and contingency plain and integrated into the article. The template is not transcluded into any articles at this time. Yellowdesk (talk) 01:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The template is non-encyclopaedic, orphaned and redundant to ((current)) or ((expand)). --Kildor (talk) 10:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Reso lute 17:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Current sport delay

The result of the debate was delete Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicates the functionality of ((current sport)). No articles presently transclude the template. Yellowdesk (talk) 01:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The template is non-encyclopaedic, orphaned and redundant to ((current)). --Kildor (talk) 10:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant. Stifle (talk) 11:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete redundant. If you don't want to read the result of an event that might be tape delayed, you avoid reading about that event. It's that simple, and everyone knows it. Reso lute 17:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Current movie figures

The result of the debate was delete Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another of the proliferating "current" templates. The template is a disclaimer on the topic of "updatable information" related to movie receipts and attendance. The need for updates is an unremarkable situation for all 2 milion wikipedia articles. Any and all articles about movies with sales and attendance figures should say the date of the figures with a citation, which would make clear the age and accuracy of the information. The template adds no new information for the reader. The template is not transcluded into any articles at this time. Yellowdesk (talk) 02:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The template is non-encyclopaedic, orphaned and redundant to ((current)). --Kildor (talk) 10:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Should not be used at all. Everything in Wikipedia is, arguably, in need of updating. Stifle (talk) 11:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Kildor, I completely agree. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 05:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant. Reso lute 17:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]