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. Alkivar, as long as schools have contested notability, they cannot fall under speedy deletion guidelines. Speedy deletions should be generally difficult to contest.
Titoxd(
?!?)20:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Keep. Yes, it is. A school is most certainly a group of people, and it could be considered a corporation, too. Thus, A7 applies. And for full disclosure, I am the author. -
Amarkovblahedits01:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Delete, per MrDarcy. I was under the impression that it was only high schools considered inherently notable, which is why I explicitly made it not apply. But if it won't apply to any school... -
Amarkovblahedits00:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)reply
SuperMegaUltraWTFAreYouStupidKeep seriously wtf people... if you actually BOTHERED to look at the template you'd see the reasoning is CSD:A7 thats NOT A NEW CRITERIA!... all "votes" who claim this is a "new criteria" should be stricken from this commentary for being just flat out wrong. As for "extra template"...
WP:NOT#PAPER learn it ... love it...
ALKIVAR™☢22:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Speedy and Strong delete - and until we can get this all sorted out through
WP:SCHOOLS, I'm not sure this fits under A7 (unless you call a school a "company" or "group"). But just as much because the author requested deletion. -
Patstuarttalk|
edits17:47, 19 December 2006 (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.
Orphaned template consisting of external links only. I would have speedy deleted it, but apparently there is no criteria for this situation. --
ReyBrujo15:08, 9 December 2006 (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.
Implied keep It is a big template, but it's convenient. It's also being worked on by myself. And
Stones Throw is NOT a minor record label. Famous underground rappers like
Madlib,
J Dilla,
MF Doom,
Madvillain, and
Peanut Butter Wolf are all signed to Stones Throw. Help finishing this template would be appreciated, and I'm working hard on it. I'd appreciate it if you could let me finish this template as it could be finished in a couple months.--
Xxplosive03:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)reply
DELETE, Stones Throw's discography is too varied and still growing rapidly - thus, the template is a complicated eyesore to every page is appears on. Every page that has a mention of Stones Throw has a link to their wikipedia page, and usually to their website, which has an extensive, complete discography posted.
MarcelloRubini07:26, 14 December 2006 (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 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. Alkivar, as long as schools have contested notability, they cannot fall under speedy deletion guidelines. Speedy deletions should be generally difficult to contest.
Titoxd(
?!?)20:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Keep. Yes, it is. A school is most certainly a group of people, and it could be considered a corporation, too. Thus, A7 applies. And for full disclosure, I am the author. -
Amarkovblahedits01:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Delete, per MrDarcy. I was under the impression that it was only high schools considered inherently notable, which is why I explicitly made it not apply. But if it won't apply to any school... -
Amarkovblahedits00:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)reply
SuperMegaUltraWTFAreYouStupidKeep seriously wtf people... if you actually BOTHERED to look at the template you'd see the reasoning is CSD:A7 thats NOT A NEW CRITERIA!... all "votes" who claim this is a "new criteria" should be stricken from this commentary for being just flat out wrong. As for "extra template"...
WP:NOT#PAPER learn it ... love it...
ALKIVAR™☢22:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Speedy and Strong delete - and until we can get this all sorted out through
WP:SCHOOLS, I'm not sure this fits under A7 (unless you call a school a "company" or "group"). But just as much because the author requested deletion. -
Patstuarttalk|
edits17:47, 19 December 2006 (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.
Orphaned template consisting of external links only. I would have speedy deleted it, but apparently there is no criteria for this situation. --
ReyBrujo15:08, 9 December 2006 (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.
Implied keep It is a big template, but it's convenient. It's also being worked on by myself. And
Stones Throw is NOT a minor record label. Famous underground rappers like
Madlib,
J Dilla,
MF Doom,
Madvillain, and
Peanut Butter Wolf are all signed to Stones Throw. Help finishing this template would be appreciated, and I'm working hard on it. I'd appreciate it if you could let me finish this template as it could be finished in a couple months.--
Xxplosive03:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)reply
DELETE, Stones Throw's discography is too varied and still growing rapidly - thus, the template is a complicated eyesore to every page is appears on. Every page that has a mention of Stones Throw has a link to their wikipedia page, and usually to their website, which has an extensive, complete discography posted.
MarcelloRubini07:26, 14 December 2006 (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 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.