Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 July 2

< July 1	July 3 >

July 2 edit

Template:Infobox Semi-Professional Football Player edit

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. Mike Peel 03:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The template is broken and only includes data about a single person. — ~Iceshark7 21:59, 2 July 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 section.

Template:1990 New York Giants staff edit

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. Mike Peel 03:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Single-use, has been embedded into 1990 New York Giants season. — Pats1 21:17, 2 July 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 section.

Template:Historical NFL roster templates edit

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 all. Mike Peel 03:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following templates are single-use and have instead been embedded into their respective team season articles (in parentheses):

Template:1990 New York Giants roster (1990 New York Giants season)

Template:1986 New York Giants roster (1986 New York Giants season)

Template:2000 Baltimore Ravens (2000 Baltimore Ravens season)

Template:2006 Cincinnati Bengals roster (2006 Cincinnati Bengals season)

Template:2006 Kansas City Chiefs team roster (2006 Kansas City Chiefs season) — Pats1 19:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. Shalom ^Hello 18:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. heqs ·:. 12:03, 8 July 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 section.

Template:db-office edit

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. Mike Peel 03:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't think of any situation in which this template would be needed. All the users (User:Cary Bass and possibly Jimbo and/or Board members) who would be authorized to make deletions under WP:OFFICE are administrators anyway, and therefore would have no need to go via a speedy-delete template, so it follows that this template will never be used. --ais523 13:54, 2 July 2007 (U T C)

Delete - the only case in which it would be needed would be to request deletion of a recreation of an article the WMF says should not exist, but the WMF would salt the article anyway. So not strictly needed. Gracenotes^T § 17:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Gracenotes and nom. Will ^(talk) 18:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've been wondering forever why we have this. I've used every speedy template from G1 through G12 except for G9, for obvious reasons, and I believe that WP:OFFICE overrided WP:CSD and is in the category of WP:IAR. I'd go even further and remove G9 from the CSD list altogether, but I know that would start up a needless firestorm. Shalom ^Hello 18:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've finally seen a situation where this template could be applied (and I would have had the page not been protected). Please see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/"Newstuff" talk pages. -N 15:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- At present, it seems to me that the pages referred to in the MfD will be deleted, but not under OFFICE; and I'd say it isn't sufficiently clear-cut to be a speedy. {{db-office}} doesn't mean "delete a page that is OFFICE-protected (possibly by mistake) but no longer relevant". --ais523 17:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  - Xaosflux unprotected the relevant pages and I applied the template. I am happy. I got to use this template xD -N 17:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not everyone who works at WP:OFFICE is an admin. Also, it can be used by third parties to attract the attention of the office. --Qu e ntin Smith 11:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As far as I know, everyone in the office who would ever use this (aka the staff who actually edit) already have admin accounts. Anyone else who would even know about this should probably use the other channels (e.g. WP:AN). If you find a page that might fall under WP:OFFICE, throwing it in the speedy deletion category doesn't seem like a reasonable option at all. I agree with ais523 -- this is not clear-cut enough to be a speedy, or at least a "normal" speedy. --- RockMFR 19:36, 6 July 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 section.