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).
TV.com is well past its prime, now patchy with large parts defunct, and no longer considered a good external link per
this discussion, as better alternatives exist. Deletion of this template family and removal of its uses is desired. —
Bilorv (talk) 12:56, 23 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete – if TV.com is now defunct, which appears to be the case, there is no reason to keep this suite of templates around any longer. --
IJBall (
contribs •
talk) 13:14, 23 April 2021 (UTC)reply
This search is probably pretty close to what you would want.
Izno (
talk) 21:44, 24 April 2021 (UTC)reply
That brings a lot of citation template usages.
insource:"at Tv.com" is similar to what the above templates use. --
Gonnym (
talk) 22:46, 24 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. Somewhat of a bittersweet moment, but I agree that since the site has been defunct for a while now, it should not be included when better alternatives exist to replace it.
Aoba47 (
talk) 19:01, 23 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete - Per nom. Since that site has been inactive for so long, I don't think it should be allowed on Wikipedia anymore.
AdamDeanHall (
talk) 14:19, 24 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom and second Gonnym's nominations. –
DarkGlow • 20:09, 24 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete - Per nom.
Pahiy (
talk) 21:29, 26 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. I hate to say it, I really do, but having not browsed this site for several years, it's clear after viewing it in 2021 that it's not what it used to be. —
Paper LuigiT •
C 00:00, 27 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete TV.com has been a very poor quality website for years.
Simon Peter Hughes (
talk) 06:40, 27 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete. I normally don't want to just follow the pack and repeat what was aforementioned by other users, but here I actually honestly agree. Looking at TV.com again, I have noticed that for one, it is currently inactive since "early 2018", and for two, it "emphasized user-generated content". And three, I believe there are some better, more up-to-date sources out there for listing TV information for television shows across the English-speaking Western World.
Qwertyxp2000 (
talk |
contribs) 04:32, 29 April 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).
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).
no current squad; unnecessary template
Joeykai (
talk) 12:33, 23 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete - Especially when it is from a defunct team. Yoshiman6464[[User talk 18:07, 23 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Note: This discussion has been included in
WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.
GiantSnowman 11:30, 28 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete - club is defunct so 'current' squad has no purpose.
GiantSnowman 11:32, 28 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Leaning towards delete - I was about to say "keep", but then I realized much of the team moved elsewhere to other sports teams, and also of course because that sports team became defunct.
Qwertyxp2000 (
talk |
contribs) 04:34, 29 April 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).
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).
TV.com is well past its prime, now patchy with large parts defunct, and no longer considered a good external link per
this discussion, as better alternatives exist. Deletion of this template family and removal of its uses is desired. —
Bilorv (talk) 12:56, 23 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete – if TV.com is now defunct, which appears to be the case, there is no reason to keep this suite of templates around any longer. --
IJBall (
contribs •
talk) 13:14, 23 April 2021 (UTC)reply
This search is probably pretty close to what you would want.
Izno (
talk) 21:44, 24 April 2021 (UTC)reply
That brings a lot of citation template usages.
insource:"at Tv.com" is similar to what the above templates use. --
Gonnym (
talk) 22:46, 24 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. Somewhat of a bittersweet moment, but I agree that since the site has been defunct for a while now, it should not be included when better alternatives exist to replace it.
Aoba47 (
talk) 19:01, 23 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete - Per nom. Since that site has been inactive for so long, I don't think it should be allowed on Wikipedia anymore.
AdamDeanHall (
talk) 14:19, 24 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom and second Gonnym's nominations. –
DarkGlow • 20:09, 24 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete - Per nom.
Pahiy (
talk) 21:29, 26 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. I hate to say it, I really do, but having not browsed this site for several years, it's clear after viewing it in 2021 that it's not what it used to be. —
Paper LuigiT •
C 00:00, 27 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete TV.com has been a very poor quality website for years.
Simon Peter Hughes (
talk) 06:40, 27 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete. I normally don't want to just follow the pack and repeat what was aforementioned by other users, but here I actually honestly agree. Looking at TV.com again, I have noticed that for one, it is currently inactive since "early 2018", and for two, it "emphasized user-generated content". And three, I believe there are some better, more up-to-date sources out there for listing TV information for television shows across the English-speaking Western World.
Qwertyxp2000 (
talk |
contribs) 04:32, 29 April 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).
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).
no current squad; unnecessary template
Joeykai (
talk) 12:33, 23 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete - Especially when it is from a defunct team. Yoshiman6464[[User talk 18:07, 23 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Note: This discussion has been included in
WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.
GiantSnowman 11:30, 28 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete - club is defunct so 'current' squad has no purpose.
GiantSnowman 11:32, 28 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Leaning towards delete - I was about to say "keep", but then I realized much of the team moved elsewhere to other sports teams, and also of course because that sports team became defunct.
Qwertyxp2000 (
talk |
contribs) 04:34, 29 April 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).