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. Alakzi (talk) 18:10, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:SpongeBob SquarePants episode count (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

redundant template, only contains an episode count, not transcluded to any articles AussieLegend (✉) 14:27, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not what a template should be used for. The article can be edited directly. –anemoneprojectors– 14:48, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep it's actually being transcluded in a few articles, and it means editing one template updates them all. This is exactly what templates are meant to be used for. Primefac (talk) 02:15, 1 November 2015 (UTC) I stand corrected; delete away. Primefac (talk) 17:21, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not, actually; templates should not be used to store article content, with few exceptions, because it's a barrier to entry. Alakzi (talk) 02:23, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's only being used again because it has been unnecessarily restored to articles. The template is still entirely redundant as transcluding from the main series article does exactly the same thing as the template, only in a less confusing way for editors, as they don't need to find the template. There are more than 36,000 articles that use ((Infobox television)) and this template is one of only a handful that do things in a way differently to the other 36,000+. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:52, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • They were restored because I was operating well within the parameters of WP:BRD, and disagreed with your removal before the TFD was concluded. In this instance you appear to be correct, but making a change before the discussion is closed is not good practice. Primefac (talk) 17:21, 1 November 2015 (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. Alakzi (talk) 18:10, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Aqua Teen Hunger Force episode count (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

redundant template, only contains an episode count, not transcluded to any more articles AussieLegend (✉) 14:12, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not what a template should be used for. The article can be edited directly. –anemoneprojectors– 14:48, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I should have mentioned in the nom that this template is redundant because there was a much better way to achieve exactly what this template did, without the need for an additional template. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:29, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep it's actually being transcluded in a few articles, and it means editing one template updates them all. This is exactly what templates are meant to be used for. Primefac (talk) 02:15, 1 November 2015 (UTC) See my comments on the Spongebob discussion above. Primefac (talk) 17:21, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • As Alakzi has said elsewhere on this page, this is exactly not what templates are meant to be used for. Templates should not be used to store article content, with few exceptions, because it's a barrier to entry. The template is now being used again because it has been unnecessarily restored to articles. The template is still entirely redundant as transcluding from the main series article does exactly the same thing as the template, only in a less confusing way for editors, as they don't need to find the template. There are more than 36,000 articles that use ((Infobox television)) and this template is one of only a handful that do things in a way differently to the other 36,000+. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:58, 1 November 2015 (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. Alakzi (talk) 18:10, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Supernatural episode count (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unnecessary template consisting only of a raw number - only transcluded to a single articlenot transcluded to any articles. AussieLegend (✉) 13:23, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not what a template should be used for. The article can be edited directly. –anemoneprojectors– 14:48, 23 October 2015 (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. Alakzi (talk) 18:10, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Family Guy episode count (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unnecessary template consisting only of a raw number - only transcluded to a single articlenot transcluded to any articles. AussieLegend (✉) 13:21, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not what a template should be used for. The article can be edited directly. –anemoneprojectors– 14:48, 23 October 2015 (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. Alakzi (talk) 18:13, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Emmerdale episodes (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unnecessary template consisting only of a raw number and a date - only transcluded to a single articlenot transcluded to any articles. AussieLegend (✉) 13:20, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not what a template should be used for. The article can be edited directly. –anemoneprojectors– 14:47, 23 October 2015 (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. Alakzi (talk) 18:13, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Coronation Street episodes (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unnecessary template consisting only of a raw number and a date - only transcluded to a single articlenot transcluded to any articles. AussieLegend (✉) 13:18, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and just edit the article instead. Not what a template should be used for. –anemoneprojectors– 14:44, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I should have mentioned in the nom that this template is redundant because there was a much better way to achieve exactly what this template did, without the need for an additional template. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:29, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps you could elaborate on "a much better way to achieve exactly what this template did" as you haven't explained what this better approach is? I am assuming you do not mean simply editing the article directly otherwise you'd have surely said as much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bungle (talk • contribs) 18:52, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed, editing the article directly, as we do for the other 36,166 articles that use ((Infobox television)) is a better option. That allows any editor to edit the episode count, and not just those who understand that an obscure template is being transcluded. It's simply a matter of wrapping the episode count in <includeonly> and </includeonly>, which is what the template does, and transcluding the article. The result is exactly the same as what the template achieves but without the template. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:17, 25 October 2015 (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. Series has finished, so dynamic changes are unnecessary. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 03:48, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Futurama episode count (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unnecessary template consisting only of a raw number - was only transcluded to a single article that is about a series that has ended, so the templatre would never be updated. Template is not transcluded to any articles. AussieLegend (✉) 13:14, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not what a template should be used for. The article can be edited directly. –anemoneprojectors– 14:48, 23 October 2015 (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. This is a topic area known to be frequented by SPAs - by my count, seven of the "keep" !voters here. Discounting those, that gives us two keeps and three deletes, plus the nominator. Especially when read in conjunction with the earlier TfD for now-deleted ((Oldest men)), which saw broader participation, consensus is clearly to delete this. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:10, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Oldest people (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Similar to Template:Oldest men being discussed at CFD. This links to the wrong article as the source is at Oldest_people#Chronological_list_of_the_verified_oldest_living_person_since_1955. It's similarly based solely on the GRG listing and thus ignores the possibility of other reliable sources. Similarly, we don't need this template as being a member of this template isn't sufficient for notability (some separate articles have survived AFD, some have not). Close to a majority of the names are hard text. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:56, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll drop that point. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:49, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Update For what it's worth, Template:Oldest men was closed as deleted here with the same points being made there as here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:49, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep "This links to the wrong article as the source is at Oldest_people#Chronological_list_of_the_verified_oldest_living_person_since_1955."? I could not confirmed that mistake. Gerontology Research Group is reliable sources, It is also used for source of news story and Guinness World Records. also this template is help to connect the articles to each other. there is no need to delete it.--Inception2010 (talk) 02:25, 24 October 2015 (UTC) — Inception2010 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

So if that's not the list, then where is the source for this list? If you're claiming that there is an actual discriminate list out there, it would be nice to use it so the template isn't just random nonsense. Of course, what about other source like this? It's used at List of supercentenarians who died in 2002. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:17, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. If anything, this telltale can be represented in full by a list article. Steel1943 (talk) 14:46, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Agree with Inception2010. This template should be KEEP.--153.151.83.197 (talk) 06:04, 25 October 2015 (UTC) — 153.151.83.197 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete for nom Rainbow unicorn (talk) 00:06, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I agree with Inception2010. Plus, why suddenly delete articles that have been there for years? If it was ok for an article to be up for 10+ years, why is it suddenly not OK? I see no point in deleting things that have been there for so many years. Petervermaelen (talk) 13:41, 26 October 2015 (UTC) — Petervermaelen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

See WP:ARTICLEAGE. Just because it's existed for X years does not make it notable. CommanderLinx (talk) 13:49, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Especially given that we've had to reinstate ARBCOM sanctions because of the massive sockpuppetry and other nonsense that has lasted on these articles. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:15, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I agree with Inception2010 and Petervermaelen. Also, what source (or sources) are more reliable than the GRG?   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 03:34, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I presume Guinness Book of World Records counts. As do newspapers and other reliable sources, along with these kinds of journal publications. As these discussion reiterates, the fact that a number of individual single-purpose account editors believe that the GRG should be the sole source for all this information is a very minority opinion not based in policy around here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:49, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What other sources are officiators longevity records? -- Ollie231213 (talk) 17:02, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Guinness isn't any kind of "officiator". There are no "officiators", because these aren't official positions the way political office is, nor is there a sponsoring organization as with the Olympics. They're just one reliable source. EEng (talk) 17:53, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The GRG source seems solid. Guinness also lists the currently oldest person as one of their records, as far as I know. The list exists in article form too with the specific dates and ages, but a footer template like this is quite useful in addition to that, as it helps interested readers navigate without needing to visit the list article. A link that may not point to the right place is a poor reason for deletion (especially when listed as the first reason), taking a few seconds to fix it would be the more appropriate action. Not all names in the template are required to have their own bio article or be notable for the template to have a right to exist. Gap9551 (talk) 21:40, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A comment to the nominator: it is important to provide objective and precise information in your nomination. You write: Close to a majority of the names are hard text. I counted and it turned out to be 20/58 (34%). That's not close to 50%, so your statement is a bit misleading. Gap9551 (talk) 21:43, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that a number of those individual pages were or remain subject to AFD but I'll concede the point and strike it out. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:49, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How is one AfD nomination ([1]) "a number of those individual pages"? Fiskje88 (talk) 18:34, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Guinness World Records has been publishing a list of the world's oldest verified people since 1955 ([2] and [3] confirm that Guinness has been publishing since that year); as such there has been reliable coverage of all verified oldest people since that date. Some of the world's oldest people not having a standalone article has more to do with the inefficiency of the internet (which does not provide multiple sources for all of them) than with their "invisibility". A template is not only useful for the world's oldest people, but also imperative as it shows that there is a real title to be gained; every GWR title holder has been lauded as such (see this picture as an example) by not only the GWR, but also other reliable sources such as the New York Times and the Guardian. Fiskje88 (talk) 18:34, 2 November 2015 (UTC) — Fiskje88 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Except Guinness isn't cited here which is the source (I presume) for this table. No one is arguing that the concept of the oldest person in the world should be ignored, just this particular template that isn't even based on the source you've using as evidence. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:15, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep http://www.grg.org/Adams/C.HTM lists the WOP back to 1955. Rpvt (talk) 03:27, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So you admit that you're ignoring Guinness and any other potential sources for these further GRG-cruft? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:42, 11 November 2015 (UTC) — Rpvt (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The GRG is the longevity consultant for Guinness, which means they are very likely going to be synched. You continue to ignore this fact. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 16:54, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, There is no more authorative source than GRG on this topic area, The GRG has been tracking the oldest people since 1998. What other sources are there where we know the people have authentic birthrecords and mid-life records? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Longevityresearcher (talk • contribs) 16:34, 12 November 2015 (UTC) — Longevityresearcher (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep The GRG is the most reliable source on supercentenarians their data are being used by aging researchers from around the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LongevityResearcherBelgium (talk • contribs) 21:16, 12 November 2015 (UTC) — LongevityResearcherBelgium (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

What a coincidence, having two new SPAs, one called LongevityResearcher and one called LongevityResearcherBelgium! EEng (talk) 00:04, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete since getting old does not make your bio encyclopedic, it just makes you old. Legacypac (talk) 10:02, 17 November 2015 (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 at Nov 2. Primefac (talk) 16:16, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Legazpi TV (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only one article has this template transcluded. The other two links are redirects and the rest are red links. 121.54.54.238 (talk) 03:04, 23 October 2015 (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).