Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 February 13

< February 12	February 14 >

February 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 page.

The result of the debate was speedy rouge delete by JzG -- Gracenotes ^T § 03:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Hotflick name

Template creation from a non-notable "celeb and movie" gallery site, presumably wanting their self-promotion to look more authoritative. --McGeddon 18:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I blocked the user who created this for spamming after warnings. I removed all links to the site that use this template and the only link left is to a report I left at WP:ANI. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:CSD#G11? —Dgies^t c 18:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - spam. Dismas|^(talk) 20:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was egregious spamming and unused anyway so I WP:ROUGEd it. Guy (Help!) 20:34, 13 February 2007 (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 page.

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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. –Llama man 17:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:911cd

pov fork of Template:911ct. --Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Violates WP:POVFORK. We already have {{911ct}} which covers the 9/11 conspiracy theories article and its subarticles including Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center. --Aude (talk) 17:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That template actually doesnt cover the CD very well, its just a lump of people and items, no organization. Its like calling an Iraq War template a POV fork of the WoT template. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 18:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The two are nearly identical. The layout is the same, the content is virtually the same with the exception that 911ct has Thierry Meyssan and Michael Ruppert and 911cd does not. Further, 911cd has links to September 11, 2001 attacks, Collapse of the World Trade Center, American Airlines Flight 11 Hijacking and United Airlines Flight 175 Hijacking that 911ct does not. The biggest difference is 911ct calls it a conspiracy theory and 911cd calls it a hypothesis. The content of these two templates could very readily be merged, with the remaining debate being...once again...hypothesis vs. conspiracy theory. --Durin 19:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The CT template bunches together people who do not believe in a theory, with those who do. It actually contains two theories and contains noone at all who belives in one of them, and 4 people who do not believe in any of them. The template is a mess as its organizational structure does not allow for context. The CD template however does allow for this, listing only items related to Controlled Demolition, the most prominent 9/11 based CT. Its also the only one on Wikipedia that does actually have media/books and supporters who also have articles. The links to the articles are also important as those articles as the basis of its content. YOu just basically named 7 differences between this template and another, and are stating they are the same ... that makes little sense. Again there is no debate over conspiracy theory or hypothesis. The template is named after the article its based on, not sure if you noticed that. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 19:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The content of these two templates could very readily be merged, with the remaining debate being whether to call it a conspiracy theory or hypothesis. --Durin 19:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The CT template bunches together people who do not believe in a theory, with those who do. Precisely. this is called WP:NPOV. Guy (Help!) 23:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Its not a POV fork because instead of encompassing all of the 9/11 conspiracy theories, it focuses solely on the controlled demolition theory. The problem that was noted with the CT template was that it lumped everyone together, people who believed space guns did it and those who simply believe the building was taken down by demolitions. Some users attempted to removed some of the outlandish conspiracy theories, however Tom opposed. The previous discussion is here: Template_talk:911ct#Removing_supporters_list, where Arthur Rubin tells Lovelight to create the template [1] And my prediction that the template would be attacked shortly after Lovelight was told to make it. [2] --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 18:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Redundant to the CT template. This is just another conspiracy theory and deserves no more nor no less consideration than others. --StuffOfInterest 18:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The layout of the CT template does not specify who believes in what, which was a major issue. Also I am not sure why you say its "Just another conspiracy theory" can you show me 3 other 9/11 CT articles? There isnt any because Controlled Demolition is the only one with an article other then NESARA. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 18:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For other conspiracy theories with entries on Wikipedia, have a look at the rather long 9/11 conspiracy theories. Also, have a look at the pages that link to it and note the huge number of redirects to it from previous articles [3]. There is no shortage of conspiracy theories in the world regarding the 9/11 attacks. Likewise, there's no shortage of writing here on Wikipedia about it. The controlled demolition theory is hardly alone. --Durin 19:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Name them please. There are plenty of people, movies and books linked to 9/11 CT. However not many theories have their own pages, showing the importance of it having its own template. Its a larger phenomenon. With a multitude of supporters, which also do not believe in the other items listed on the CT template, further showing its need to be differentiated. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 19:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then delete the template and include the links on the only article where it is appropriate, per another suggestion on this TfD. --Durin 19:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The war over whether the controlled demolition hypothesis is a conspiracy theory or not never seems to end. That there had to have been a conspiracy behind a controlled demolition plot is self evident. Yet, there are those that feel the term is derogatory and do not want it associated with the theory. This debate has gone on and on, and shows no sign of letting up. This template is just the latest permutation of this long debate. What should happen is the a consensus should be formed on the template that this template is an obvious POV fork of, and what consensus indicates should rule what the original template says. This POV fork template should go. --Durin 18:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The template itself acknowledges its a conspiracy theory. I am not sure if you are confused. The template covers the controlled demolition hypothesis. You may be confusing this with something else. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 18:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but the template we are discussing does not mention the term "conspiracy" whereas the template it is a fork of does. I'm not confused about this in any respect. The template we are discussing has very few differences between itself and Template:911ct. The most prominent of these is that this template does not mention "conspiracy". Thus, the old debate "It's a conspiracy theory" vs. "No, it's a hypothesis". --Durin 18:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I still do not know what you are talking about, you do realize that the main article is called "Controlled Demolition hypothesis ..." This has nothing to do with the term conspiracy theory, please stay on topic.

You've just made my point for me. You insist that conspiracy theory has nothing to do with this. Obviously others do. The debate rages on. --Durin 19:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy. I don't think it was quite ready for prime time. There seems to be a place for it if it has appropriate links to the the CT template. Alternatively, the CT template could have a "hidden" flag of sorts to hide non-CD matters, but I don't know how to do that. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And as I told Lovelight in my edit above, Arthur will tell you to make a CD template, to get rid of you, then oppose its creation later, a typical strategy. Was I on the money or what? --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 18:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. What Arthur said was "You're welcome to create a separate "Controlled demolition" template, but this is not the place for it." No-one instructed anyone to create a template. You are not assuming good faith here, and you really should be doing so. This template simply is not ready to see the light of day. Fiddle Faddle 19:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can someone please layout the PoV being expressed? The majority of the people above are known for frequenting the same AfD's so I would just like clarifying as who's PoV and what that PoV is, this way I can cover multiple peoples issue at once. Thank you. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 18:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"It's a conspiracy theory" vs. "No, it's a hypothesis". --Durin 18:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see the title of the Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center article. Not sure why you put this in 8 places without seeing the template is simply named after the main article. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 19:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You asked a question about what the PoV problem was. I answered you. --Durin 19:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Because the only plausible use for this is in Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center there is no need for a template, just a custom inline table of topics. Everywhere else should use the general conspiracy theory template. —Dgies^t c 18:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- redundant and POV. MortonDevonshire Yo · 19:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Redundant to 911ct. Abe Froman 19:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, with some regret because I think this was released after a misunderstanding. In its current form it is a POV fork. It could be readjusted with care as a sub-element of {{911ct}} and be of use, but it would be wise to reach consensus prior to release. The area is contentious and hot feelings arise here. Proper consensus is needed if this one is to move forward, but the most progmatic steo woudl be to withdrraw the template and save the discussion at present. Fiddle Faddle 20:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions.
Delete redundant. From Nuclear's analysis of the situation it seems to me that this template was created so that people who believe in "controlled demolition" wouldn't be in the same category as people who believe things that the "controlled demolition" people see as ludicrous, i:e the "space gun" cadre as Nuclear refers to them. It is clear from Nuclear's comment that the people responsible for this template were interested in making "controlled demolition" seem more credible. That's the definition of a POV fork. This might be okay if separating the two served a legitimate encyclopedic purpose, for example, if a few articles really didn't belong in one category and needed a separate template, but that isn't the case here. In fact, the difference between the two templates is so slight that the only motive I can imagine is to push a POV. Also, why are Fahrenheight 9/11 and Dust to Dust: The Health Effects of 9/11 listed here? I don't recall F 9/11 ever suggesting that the buildings were brought down by "controlled demolition" and there is nothing in the "dust to dust" article that indicates that work had something to say about "controlled demolition" either. GabrielF 21:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a redundant fork, per others -- Renesis (talk) 21:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Instant Delete & Close – because you, dear Arthur, deliberately wasted my time (you were clairvoyant on this one Nuke, you really were…) and because you stated earlier that CD template is a worthy cause just so that you can now contradict your own thoughts? And Durin, Gabriel and others too, no, this was not about hypothesis vs. conspiracy; this was about popular connotations of the term conspiracy, it's about that outrageous tinfoil crap which leads POV where no POV has been before. You could have read through discussion(s) before drawing hasty conclusions (Ivan Pavlov?), if you would have done so you'd know that this was actually an effort to reach the middle ground, since there is clearly no consensus on 911ct template. I've been patient enough, 911ct template is poor attempt to mix stuff that doesn’t go together, NESARA has nothing to do with CD hypothesis. Insisting on term conspiracy is POV, distribution of that template without consensus is vandalism… and wasting other peoples time… well that's just wicked - to say the least. Lovelight 22:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pov fork of Template:911ct.--MONGO 22:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It’s the other way around MONGO and you know it. Lovelight 22:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with prejudice. Redundant, fork, subset of the madness that is 9/11 conspiracy theories, undue weight, soapboxing. Take your pick Guy (Help!) 23:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There already exists {{911ct}}, more isn't needed. Αργυριου (talk) 00:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The template itself promotes a POV by trying to sway the reader with "Proponents and supporters", but no listing for "Critics and debunkers". All of the links to media and books are also from proponents and supporters. This entire template appears to be a simple tool to promote and legitimize one of the theories over any other. --JJLatWiki 19:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as PoV fork. Half the reason for this template would be removed if the NESARA conspiracy theory were removed from Template:911ct, as I suggested on 911ct's talk page. The NESARA conspiracy theory is only tangentially related to 9/11, and that article itself is the subject of an AfD. My only involvement in this whole mess has been through coming to 911ct in response to a RfC. PubliusFL 21:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: and the other half (inclusion of conspiracy theorists who do not believe the CD theory) would expand to take up the available discussion. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please, let's wrap this one up, this proposition for deletion was done hastily, I never stuck this anywhere but on related article. We could have addressed all of our concerns on appropriate talk page… Well, my apologies to everyone (and my gratitude to Nuclear who I've involved into all this just so that he can suffer another series of childish threats & attacks), since we unnecessarily wasted our time. Lovelight 01:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - If he wants it deleted, perhaps this should be speedied as {{db-author}}. The "mistake" was the move into template-space, rather than the article creation, though. I feel my edits to the template are not significant, and Nuclear will have to speak for himself as to whether he considers the move a contribution, even if it was at Lovelight's request. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, the only "mistake" was done by me, when I assumed a good faith with regards to your "well intended" suggestion. Again, don’t know about the rules, but I'd suggest we wrap this one up. Lovelight 02:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redundant POV fork --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 18:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and what'n. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:17, 19 February 2007 (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 page.

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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. –Llama man 01:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Copyright 1975 Volkswagen of America

Delete; if the image is validly "fair use", this template isn't necessary. If not, the image should be deleted. —An gr 13:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteIf the image is under copyright restrictions and/or fair use then there are other templates used for this, having one just about VW just seem to me like taking up unnecessary server space.Telly addict^{Editor review!} 16:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Durin 19:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redundant per {{Image deliberately violates Wikipedia copyright policy}}. Oh, we don't have that, I wonder why? Guy (Help!) 23:54, 13 February 2007 (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 page.

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 page.

The result of the debate was delete by JzG Gracenotes ^T § 03:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tempate:WikiProject Ghost towns list

Looks like a (misspelled) draft of {{WikiProject Ghost towns list}}. --Her Pegship (tis herself) 06:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not a good redirect candidate. —Dgies^t c 07:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The template is a duplicate except it has a different picture. The only thing I'd suggest is that picture used on the duplicate should be moved to the original template as it looks a little more advanced/professional.Telly addict^{Editor review!} 16:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Given that it's a typo and unused, I deleted it. No need to waste more time, I'd say. Guy (Help!) 23:56, 13 February 2007 (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 page.

Template:Marvel-villain-stub

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 page.

The result of the debate was speedy close, move to SfD. --ais523 11:36, 19 February 2007 (U T C)

Moved to WP:SFD. Please read the instructions! Grutness...wha? 23:51, 13 February 2007 (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 page.