Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 May 28

< May 27	May 29 >

May 28 edit

Template:Geolinks-AUS-suburbscale-titleonly 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. Orderinchaos 07:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Was only used in 8 articles, is no longer transcluded. The use of {{coord|lat|long|display=title}} effectively supersedes it. — Orderinchaos 20:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No need to keep an unused, superseded template. It's only taking up space. hmwith talk 07:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Taking a look at Template:Coord shows that it does indeed supersede Template:Geolinks-AUS-suburbscale-titleonly. --Jacj 16:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redundant of Template:Coord. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 08:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Andy Mabbett 16:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No need to keep an un-used template. --Kralizec! (talk) 19:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redundant --Ssbohio 15:12, 3 June 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:User Photoshop-4 small 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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(Don't ask 'bout Camden) 02:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There exists a better template, this template isn't used by anyone ( that I can see using Special:Whatlinkshere ), there is not a series of them eg. Template:User Photoshop-4 small, Template:User Photoshop-3 small. All together it seems someone has made it, and then forgot about it . > Rugby471 ^talk 09:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Not used anywhere, made obselete, it has no use and is just taking up space basically. > Rugby471 ^talk 09:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if unused. Blockinblox 13:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I made this at some point, but the reason was because I didn't like the version that already existed. I forgot about it. I'm no longer using it, it's not on any list, and I doubt anybody else uses it (nothing links to it). —msikma (user, talk) 14:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC) (PS: the word you're looking for is "obsolete", not "obselete". PPS: you really don't need to worry about a template taking up space.)[reply]
Delete No need to keep an unused template, which only exist to be used. I would suggest for the creator to move it to his/her userspace, but since the user wants it's deleted as well, it's only taking up space there. hmwith talk 07:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - hardly used, if used, the other version is much better. –Se bi ~ 08:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redundant of User:UBX/User photoshop. And {{User Photoshop-4 small}} is not compatible with the userbox migration plan. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib)

Comment I also took the liberty of checking that this template in question is indeed the only template that begins with "User Photoshop". --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 08:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination and the withdrawal of its creator's support. --Kralizec! (talk) 19:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per creator. Redundant --Ssbohio 15:12, 3 June 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:3o 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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(Don't ask 'bout Camden) 02:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we even need a template for this?? — Circeus 04:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm as confused as the nominator. If someone responds to a request for a third-party opinion, can't she just say so? Why use a template? -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Looks like so far this has only been used on one article. Smee 05:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Useless template. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 06:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- NRV. Dfrg.msc 07:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- not hurting anything. Blockinblox 13:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a third opinion should be considered part of the flow of a debate, not a glorious entry with trumpets and ponies ;) (gah, now I'm tempted to add those to the template) Gracenotes^T § 13:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I like the way you think. We really need more trumpets & ponies in the project. Might I suggest a marching band? --Ssbohio 15:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's as easy to type a few characters. Orderinchaos 21:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Not because it's useless (it does save typing), but because this is harmful. Third opinions should be treated just like another editor deciding to pop in and say "Hi, here's my opinion!" Announcing it with fanfare just encourages people to either view it as a ruling handed down from on high and automatically consent, or treat the person's opinion as less valid because it's just to break the dispute. -Amarkov moo! 04:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It could be semi-helpful, but it's not used enough to be worth keeping. hmwith talk 07:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redundant. Also, third opinions should not be seen as a foreign intervention into an article, but rather a way to get an uninvolved editor to look at a situation with fresh eyes. --Ssbohio 15:12, 3 June 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.

Ranks and insignia of NATO 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 no consensus. RyanGerbil10(Don't ask 'bout Camden) 02:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The templates

Incredibly long series of convenience single-use templates that actually make the pages harder, rather than easier to edit. Nomination for subst and delete. Circeus 04:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I hate one-use template as much as everyone else here. But it seems that these templates have the potential of being re-used. I found, by accident, that {{Ranks and Insignia of NATO Armies/OR/Norway}} is used by Ranks and insignia of NATO Armies Enlisted and Norwegian Army. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 06:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It is my understanding that when this happen,it is the exception, not the rule, and an extra subst or two will not cause much trouble. I'm all for the occasional convenience template, but this is not the best way to go, and could probably have been handled with a single templates covering all the rows.Circeus 06:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and weak keep Seems like a large amount of complication, but useful if the information is needed in more than one place. --Ssbohio 15:12, 3 June 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:Prod-nn 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 no consensus. Although it is clear that the majority of voter here favor deletion of this template, I am not inclined to believe that doing so would be in the best interests of the encyclopedia. I have come across many articles in RC, NP, and CSD duties which have absolutely awful prod summaries, such as "nn," "non-notable," or "barely more than A7." By allowing a full reason to be automatically appended, I feel that prods will be more consistently comprehensible to newbie editors, who, in all reality, are the ones who would be seeing this template most if it were put into wide usage. I would, however, suggest a re-word. RyanGerbil10(Don't ask 'bout Camden) 02:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template automates the proposed deletion process by allowing the substitution of a boilerplate message. I am nominating it for deletion for the following reasons:

When an article is not subject to speedy deletion, additional thought should go into its deletion. This template allows users to skip that step. When a reason for deletion must be manually typed, one is forced to consider the argument and consider whether/why an article violates a certain policy or guideline.
The message that this template conveys is vague and unhelpful: This article is about a subject which may not be notable enough to be included on Wikipedia. Since when do we argue to delete a page because it may violate a policy or guideline or argue to keep because it may not violate a policy or guideline? In terms of conveying information that might aid a new user to improve the article, this template is misleading. It links only to Wikipedia:Notability, whereas an article might fall under a particular subject-specific notability guideline. In terms of conveying information that might aid a proposed deletion patroller, this template is worthless. Why is it that the subject "may not be notable"? Did whoever added the tag look for sources? What other problems might the article have? What happened that cause an editor to reach the conclusion that a given subject "may not be notable"?
Prior to drafting this TfD nomination, I tried to think of alternate wordings, but was unable to come up with one that would not be problematic in one or more respects.
This template was created to support a proposal that was rejected by the community.

— Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Just a specialized version of template:prod. If we can have specialized speedy deletion template, surely we can have specialized proposed deletion ones? Circeus 04:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What speedy keep criterion would you be referring to, Circeus? It is indeed a specialized version of Template:Prod; I think, however, that it should not be used, at least to the extent promoted by its existence at a template. I agree with Black Falcon that a proposed deletion requires more consideration, and specifically addressing how the article is not notable. Thus I say, "delete". --Iamunknown 05:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wikipedia:Speedy keep refers to the speedy closing itself. It doesn't keep any body from voicing the opinion that the course is justified. Circeus 06:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Nope, Wikipedia:Speedy keep only applies when one or more of the conditions listed on the page holds. Editors should refer to a speey keep criterion when opining "speedy keep"; not just say "speedy keep". --Iamunknown 02:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Moderate keep, but reword. I can see nothing wrong with this that rewording wouldn't fix, and it would be useful: "nn" is a major reason for prodding articles, and this gives far more information to the articles creator than a simple "nn" ever would. I would suggest rewording to something like There is nothing on this page to suggest that its subject is noteworthy enough for a wikipedia article. That gets around whether the subject is actually noteworthy with the far more easily ascertained criterion of evidence of notability. Grutness...wha? 00:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is probably the major reason for prodding articles ... it is the rationale for 90%+ of the articles that I tag. Although your proposed wording is certainly an improvement over the current message, it still has the problems of linking only to Wikipedia:Notability when a subject-specific guideline may be more appropriate and of conveying insufficient information to proposed deletion patrollers in terms of the whether the person tagging the article checked for sources (and other information that the tagger may have considered/discovered). -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. People are going to indiscriminately prod things for lack of notability, template or not. However, I really do dislike things which encourage a "click and ignore" mentality to deletion. -Amarkov moo! 04:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Grutness. It's not 100% specific, but more than the basic template. I also agree with Black Falcon, as the large majority or articles I tag for deletion are for this reason. The exact type of notability can be discussed in the AfD nomination. hmwith talk 07:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I once wrote a script that I could use to prod articles I came across during NP patrol without having to type out the template, either prompting for the reason or with a predefined one. I always used the prompt, as predefined reasons were never precise enough, and ended up removing the predefined ones from the list. This template serves the same purpose as the predefined reasons, and therefore I suspect will prove just as redundant. --ais523 17:11, 29 May 2007 (U T C)
Delete. I was all set to support as a useful shortcut, but Black Falcon is convincing: this seems to encourage a lack of thought. One thing I've always hated about "notability" is its association with personal disapproval... and templates that reinforce that idea are damaging. Plus, it's only a shortcut. Asking for a hand-typed reason in a prod tag is not at all unreasonable: someone worked on the article, you can work on the deletion argument. Mango juice^talk 18:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - better than just indicating "nn" which is meaningless to new editors. Addhoc 11:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's a bad idea to have a boilerplate prod, for the reasons already stated. Additionally, templates like this further encourage the practice of drive-by editing & adminning. --Ssbohio 15:12, 3 June 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:U.S. School Test 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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(Don't ask 'bout Camden) 02:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ideosyncratic POV fork template created by a new user who went on a non-consensus editing spree changing every school article one by hand, apparently in response to this new template, without discussion. Template not used in any article. Corvus cornix 01:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not sure why this is POV. But even if this is a legit attempt to improve {{U.S. School}}, it should be done in a sandbox, or in the user space, not in Template:. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 06:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Blockinblox 13:19, 28 May 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:Wikiversity-bc 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 to keep. RyanGerbil10(Don't ask 'bout Camden) 02:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At first glance this looks like a legitimate sister project template, but it is actually an advertisement for the Wikiversity Bloom Clock WikiProject. The Wikiversity Bloom Clock is currently so rudimentary that this template does not take the reader to any useful information, and, judging by its wording, it is not even intended to do so; rather, it functions as a request for editors to add material to the Bloom Clock. I would question whether an advertisement for a WikiProject on a different website belongs on Wikipedia at all, let alone in article mainspace. Hesperian 00:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hesperian 00:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I no longer feel strongly about deletion, but would still like to see this TfD run its course. Hesperian 00:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ per above Blockinblox 13:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC) Changed to keep, the below arguments convinced me to support our sisters, but one point, Wikiversity being the only Meta project that allows OR, it is generally going to attract flakier material than any other project. I don't really know about this one. Blockinblox 14:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, we've been discussing guidelines for OR projects from the start. There are very few of them so far, because they need to be about objectively verifiable subjects (bloom time falling squarely under that description). --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 14:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't even know why we're having this discussion; we're supposed to support our sister projects. Part of that is linking all relevant content across all relevant Wikimedia projects (and sometimes non-Wikimedia) together. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 13:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Plants#Proposal_for_flowering_date_categories, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Plants#Categories_by_dates_of_flowering_.28again.29, and Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_May_17#Category:Mid_winter_flowers. The Bloom Clock is a research project, in large part intended to help solve some issues we have on wikipedia when it comes to "Latitude-neutral" descriptions of flowering times. It is indeed rudimentary, but wikis work by bringing minds together. --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 13:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
close this early as keep. This proposed page deletion would destroy a valid template for linking Wikipedia pages to related learning resources at a sister project. Wikipedia is a Wikimedia Foundation sister project that needs to remember the goals of the Foundation, not play games of mindless deletionism. --JWSchmidt 14:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There's no "learning resources" there, JWSchmidt. That is the whole point of this nomination. The template doesn't say "there more information over there"; it says "please help us by putting some information over there". Hesperian 00:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Furthermore this is probably about my fifth nomination for deletion in nearly three years, so please refactor your inaccurate ad hominim "mindless deletionism" comment. Hesperian 00:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if my comment upset you. I was commenting on the fact that many Wikipedians live in a self-created bubble within which they have little understanding of the broader goals of the Wikimedia Foundation and the workings of Wikipedia's sister projects. Out of such ignorance comes use of the mindless reflex to delete first and ask questions later (well, maybe ask questions...if we have to). At Wikiversity there is a "learn by doing" approach by which people who are interested in a topic (such as flowers) are invited to participate in activities such as research projects. In the course of such wiki-mediated collaborations, participants learn and new learning resources are created and developed. The Bloom Clock Project is itself a learning resource. There are several templates used to link Wikipedia pages to related Wikiversity pages. If there is a problem with the wording of this particular template (is it really an offensive advertisement?) then why not discuss that problem on the template's talk page? --JWSchmidt 01:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have about 4000 Wikispecies edits, 1500 Wikimedia Commons contributions, 500 Wikisource contributions, and a handful of edits over another eight sister projects, so I flatter myself this nomination was not made in ignorance of "the broader goals of the Wikimedia Foundation and the workings of Wikipedia's sister projects." The problem is not the wording of the template, so long as there is no information on the bloom clock to link to. As I'm sure you're aware, every other sister project template works like this (1) locate or add material on the sister project page; (2) link to it from Wikipedia. This template is unique in that it works like this: (1) add link to non-existent sister project material from Wikipedia; (2) hope that someone will add some material sooner or later. Therefore it is an advertisement for a Wikiversity WikiProject, and does not belong in Wikipedia article space. Rewording it will not change that. Hesperian 01:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(reset tabs) Please keep it cordial guys. Hesperian, I think what you're missing is just background on how Wikiversity works, namely by "learning through participating". So in that sense, all interwiki links to Wikiversity are essentially going to be "invitations" to participate. It's just a very different project than (for example) Wikibooks, which is creating content to be used as textbook material. Wikiversity doesn't create content per se, but rather uses the practice of creating content to teach and learn.

In the case of the Bloom Clock (and other biology/ecology clocks soon to come), it's actually a research project, and more specifically an observational research project. it's in its infancy in some ways because the GUI-versions aren't yet fully prepared, but it's fully ready to accept data and new participants, and since they're being linked from articles about individual plants, the GUI isn't really an issue in any case. It also has data, so that someone could learn that this-or-that plant was blooming at this-or-that time and in this-or-that location. IOW, the template invites people to teach/learn in the same act, which is what Wikiversity does. --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 18:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not nominating the bloom clock for deletion, folks; I'm nominating this template. Since when have we allowed advertisements for WikiProjects in article space? Hesperian 00:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(See below)--SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 18:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Support our sister projects? That's perfectly reasonable. But we don't allow our own Wikiprojects to apply their templates in articlespace, so not allowing sister projects to do that is in no way unsupportive. -Amarkov moo! 04:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a WikiProject, it's main-namespace content. Wikiversity projects ("project" being a word we use similarly to how "article" is used on Wikipedia) in general just don't have the same kind of content as Wikipedia articles, because of the core nature of Wikiversity. All Wikiversity content is participation-based (rather than aimed necessarily at content creation), which might seem a bit alien to Wikipedians, but this is why Wikiversity was broken off from Wikibooks in the first place. --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 09:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's mainspace content there, because as you say, Wikiversity is set up in a far different format. I should have worded that differently, but it's a lot more similar to a Wikiproject than it is to an article, and thus, we shouldn't be linking to it from articles. Talk pages, maybe, but not articles. -Amarkov moo! 23:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's more or less the point :). This isn't a link to an article, it's an interwiki link to a Wikiversity page. Wikiversity pages aren't articles (nor are Wikibooks modules, Commons galleries, Wiktionary definitions, etc.). Content on other projects is not subject to the rules of Wikipedia, which is in part why those sister projects exist. This template is used to make legitimate links to certain Wikiversity pages which, if they were on Wikipedia, would look like wikiprojects (or in this case actual Original Research, which is of course banned on wikipedia because encyclopedias are not research projects). The sister project links are not Wikipedia content, they're just links to sister-project pages that deal with the same subject, in whatever way that that particular project deals with subject matter. Content that looks like a Wikipedia article is deleted on most projects, so it should be no surprise at all that interwiki links will lead to pages that don't look like Wikipedia articles.--SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 20:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm starting to see your point now. I still have some concerns, but I can live with that. Hesperian 00:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(to SB Johnny) I think we're talking past each other. I understand that other projects do not have pages that look like Wikipedia articles. I fully agree that supporting those projects is fine. I just think that the same rules about linking to Wikipedia content from articles should apply across projects. If this were a template on talk pages, I would be perfectly fine with that, but it isn't. -Amarkov moo! 01:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's more a discussion about interwiki templates in general in that case, rather than any particular template. Talk pages are used for improving the article they're attached to (including wikiprojects that work on improving a certain class of Wikipedia articles). Interwiki templates are on the article pages because they are used to notify readers (not just editors) of other free content hosted by the Wikimedia foundation. Wikiversity content is content that the reader learns from by participating in, unlike wikiprojects which are internal projects used to improve whichever wiki you happen to be helping to create :). --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 20:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - on the sole ground that this is a template in mainspace performing the stated function. I would not have an objection to a notification on the talk page of an article, even a template, much like a WikiProject notification. Orderinchaos 07:12, 4 June 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:LGAT 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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(Don't ask 'bout Camden) 02:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template groups a number of organizations and individuals based on some sources that characterize them as "Large group awareness training". That characterization is disputed in many cases, and despite the availability of some sources that characterize them as such, having such template is asserting these sources' opinions as fact, when they are not such, violating WP:NPOV. If the term is used by some psychologists, that is in itself not a reason for creating a template, but a good reason for creating an article on the subject.

Delete ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. -- There is no case in which this characterization is "disputed", at least, not off-Wiki. The term "Large Group Awareness Training" is a term utilized primarily by psychologists and psychiatrists. In fact, Landmark Education has actually acknowledged in a paper authored by a CEO of their subsidiary company, that they have been referred to in academic sources as a "Large Group Awareness Training." The only objections to this characterization has come from Wiki Editors, based on some preconceived misconception, that is not supported by academic psychology literature. Smee 01:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Strong Delete If the term has a specific, well-defined meaning for psychologists and psychiatrists, then it's good to have an article explaining their usage of the term. I read Large Group Awareness Training for the first time last night, and what came to mind was the title track from Brother Love's Travelling Salvation Show. Frankly, I think the psychologists and psychiatrists are trying to figure out why something they don't understand -- energetic religious gatherings and other motivational gatherings of all sorts -- attract so many people. So they call it "Large Group Awareness Training" and try to figure it out. I have no problem with their trying to figure it out, but I consider a template with this name much too broad and open to abuse. I envison every article related to religion and other inspirations tagged with this template. I repeat, Strong delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SueHay (talk • contribs)
Keep.

This template allows a connection between several Wikipedia articles that have very few internal links linking to them It is a navigational template to aid users wanting to read about the topic of Large Group Awareness Training, and it would be very hard to find related articles without a navigational template to aid the reader.
The template itself mimics List of Large Group Awareness Training organizations, which has a reliable source attributing each claim of association. To dispute specific cases, it would be better to discuss the interpretation of sources on the talk page of that article, rather than to assume that every single entry in the template violates the neutral point of view policy by default.
When a claim is disputed, listing it as fact is not necessarily violating the neutral point of view policy. What matters is who is disputing the claim - if the view is significant, an independent, reliable source would have written about it. (And the other way around - by Wikipedia standards, a view is significant if an independent reliable source has written about it.) French royalists dispute the validity of the French republic, yet {{Politics of France}} is not deleted, and presented as fact.
Certain organisations, for example Mind Dynamics and Erhard Seminars Training, have been referred to as large group awareness trainings by multiple reliable sources, and with these specific examples, the label is (almost) undisputed. I propose a discussion on Talk:List of Large Group Awareness Training organizations to assess the sources covering other entries on the list (and by extension inclusion in the template).

--User:Krator (t c) 11:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When Krator says that certain groups like Mind Dynamics, Erhard Seminars Training, Lifespring, etc. have been referred to as "Large Group Awareness Training", we are talking about approximately (12) independent reputable sourced citations. Smee 11:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I would also like to add that no one has yet to ever provide a reputable sourced citation from anyone off-Wiki that disputes the term "Large Group Awareness Training." This has only been disputed by on-Wiki, and that is OR. Smee 12:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Delete as POV pushing - Obviously what we have here is the typical wikipedia situation of one POV refusing to acknowledge that the other POV exists. Blockinblox 13:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - a subjective characterization does not work for navigational templates. Gracenotes^T § 13:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I came here because of the post at the Psychology Project. The template amounts to commercial spamicisement for cultish organizations, and the article related to the topic (contrary to the claim above about "reputable" sources) cites exactly none of the exactly two peer-reviewed sources available, which discuss the nature of these "groups". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and others. --Justanother 17:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT: -- Perhaps it might be equitable if most people are not in agreement about these two sections of the template, to simply remove the subsections "Organizations" and "People", and keep the rest for now. Smee 05:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - I don't see how the classification can be done in any way which meets our no original research policy. (Note this is a fairly common issue with broad categories and templates) Orderinchaos 07:13, 4 June 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.