Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 April 4

< April 3	April 5 >

April 4 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 section.

The result of the discussion was Speedy delete. Exact copy of Template:Babu Sivan, discussion open below --Malinaccier (talk) 01:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Babusivan edit

Template:Babusivan (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Film director navbox that links to a single, yet-unreleased film. GregorB (talk) 20:35, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

support deletion pointless use of electrons! -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only one film that is easily linked from the article in the prose or in an infobox. Unneeded. Malinaccier (talk) 01:52, 5 April 2009 (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:Babu Sivan 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 section.

The result of the discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 07:26, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Babu Sivan (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Ditto. GregorB (talk) 20:35, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only one film that is easily linked from the article in the prose or in an infobox. Unneeded.
Delete per the unsigned guy. If this man makes more movies, a navbox should be in order, but one or two are hardly enough. —Admiral Norton ^(talk) 14:01, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete That's not the point of using a template. --Thin boy 00 @161, i.e. 02:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Navigation templates exist to facilitate navigation between a set of related articles, but such facilitation is not needed to connect just two (or even three) articles. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:36, 8 April 2009 (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:Randy Moss Motorsports 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 section.

The result of the discussion was delete, with no prejudice toward recreation/restoration if additional articles are created. JPG-GR (talk) 07:27, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Randy Moss Motorsports (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not notable enough for its own template. Teams must have accomplished a significant achievement or be wide in size or partnerships in order to deserve a template. Having a famous owner is not enough. D-Day (talk) 02:03, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral The team is notable enough, but there is so little content in the template because there aren't articles for the team members. Right now it's not very useful, but it might someday. It's easier to just link the articles together in inline wikilinks. So no prejudice if someone wants to recreate the template. Royal broil 03:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, without prejudice to recreation/undeletion if another article is created. I agree with Royalbroil that a template could be useful, but with a current total of just 3 articles about the topic (I'm not counting Toyota Racing Development), there is not enough to justify navbox. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:39, 8 April 2009 (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.