Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 May 28

< May 27	May 29 >

May 28 edit

Template:Legality of zoophilia by country or territory edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:18, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Legality of zoophilia by country or territory (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Appears to be based largely on original research. Or maybe we all really believe it is perfectly legal to rape animals in, for example, New Mexico and West Virginia? This entire content area seems to suffer from OR by people who may have more than just a casual interest in the topic. This may technically qualify for speedy deletion under criterion G5 as the creating user is blocked for abusing multiple accounts, but the details are unclear. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:49, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too much OR. Exactly the same issue as the mainspace article. Beeblebrox, will this page be deleted as well if the template is deleted? --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:14, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it will. See WP:CSD#G8 * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:09, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, my delete vote still stands. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 03:02, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, unsourced. If anything, there are 24 other templates on Animal rights by country or territory that need scrutiny, all with similar content and many of then unsourced:
–LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:14, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've created many of those templates but provided ample resources for everything, including literature, laws and reliable news sources. If there is any unsourced material or original research in anything I have created, please let me know and I'll try to fix it. There are indeed too many maps on Commons which don't cite their sources, or rely solely on unreliable sources, or too much on primary sources. That's why I'm an advocate for evidence-based mapping, and am trying to set the right example, as you can read on my user page: c:User:Nederlandse Leeuw#Mapping issues (essay). I hope that eventually we can establish a guideline on this, because numerous maps on Commons are crap, but unsuspecting Wikipedians keep using them in articles, and unsuspecting readers keep thinking these maps are accurate. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:06, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per WP:OR. And yes, that topic area could use scrutiny. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:35, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this isn't original research, nor does it appear inaccurate, even if the sources aren't actually cited. According to the Animal Legal Defense Fund, zoophilia is indeed legal in New Mexico and West Virginia. (Laws against the sexual assault of animals) This might need a giant ^{[citation needed]} tag, but deletion? No. Elli (talk | contribs) 10:19, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a work of fiction, per the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Legality of bestiality by country or territory. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:02, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:43, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 10:10, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because it suffers from the same original research that the now-deleted article 'Legality of bestiality by country or territory' suffered from. To make a broader point raised by LaundryPizza03 above, there are indeed too many maps on Commons which don't cite their sources, or rely solely on unreliable sources, or too much on primary sources. That's why I'm an advocate for evidence-based mapping, and am trying to set the right example, as you can read on my user page: c:User:Nederlandse Leeuw#Mapping issues (essay). I hope that eventually we can establish a guideline on this, because numerous maps on Commons are crap, but unsuspecting Wikipedians keep using them in articles, and unsuspecting readers keep thinking these maps are accurate. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:06, 4 June 2021 (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).

Template:Under 13 Australian Championships edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:15, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Under 13 Australian Championships (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only linked to one article which is redirected to the mainspace article. The rest of the article is red links which only link to the template. The mainspace article is also under question for notability and concerns over self-published sources. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:49, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete provides no useful navigation. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:09, 29 May 2021 (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).