From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 10

Template:AAOU

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) 22:20, 17 June 2021 (UTC) reply

Not linked anywhere. The mainspace article was deleted under G11 for Unambiguous advertising or promotion in June 2020. -- WikiCleanerMan ( talk) 21:53, 10 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:ABADI

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; deleted as G7 by Kirill Lokshin ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 06:04, 11 June 2021 (UTC) reply

All it does is list disambiguations, but never links to them or is used on them. The pages listed do in fact have their own disambiguation pages, thus a template like this is not needed. -- WikiCleanerMan ( talk) 21:53, 10 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:6502

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) 22:21, 17 June 2021 (UTC) reply

Both unused. The first is only used on a sandbox that hasn't been edited since 2014. The sandbox was a testing ground for an eventually accepted AfC which doesn't use 6502. -- WikiCleanerMan ( talk) 21:40, 10 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:AC destmap

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) 22:22, 17 June 2021 (UTC) reply

Supposedly this is for Air Canada. The map is not used anywhere nor any information can be gained from the highlighted countries as there is no explanation. -- WikiCleanerMan ( talk) 21:25, 10 June 2021 (UTC) reply

The commons deletion was a result of the map being unused and out of scope. This template also falls in that category since it is unsued. -- WikiCleanerMan ( talk) 20:40, 14 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).

B-Line Templates

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 relisted on 2021 June 17. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:36, 17 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:2020 USR-PLUS Alliance/meta/shortname

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) 22:23, 17 June 2021 (UTC) reply

Both are unused. The first I assume was a test page. The meta color nominated is superseded by Template:USR PLUS/meta/color. -- WikiCleanerMan ( talk) 20:32, 10 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:Decade readership

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) 22:35, 17 June 2021 (UTC) reply

Only used on one page. A decade is significantly too long to be of any real use for most pages and the scale gets messed up if there was any large spike in the past decade. The graph itself is trivial to generate through {{ Graph:PageViews|3650}}. -- Trialpears ( talk) 19:20, 10 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:Taxonomy/Prunella (bird)

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) 22:24, 17 June 2021 (UTC) reply

No longer transcluded anywhere, it looks like there was some redundancy with Template:Taxonomy/Prunella that I fixed up, so this is no longer needed. Template35 ( talk) 16:12, 10 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:Zhou Shen

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) 22:24, 17 June 2021 (UTC) reply

With only two directly-related articles to the main article, this template is overkill as it doesn't not further aid in navigation. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars Talk to me 15:51, 10 June 2021 (UTC) reply

Delete per nomination. User:GKFX talk 17:33, 10 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:Latest stable software release/Sharelin

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) 22:36, 17 June 2021 (UTC) reply

This template is not used anywhere right now. It was probably used at some point on Sharelin, which was deleted. Anton.bersh ( talk) 14:03, 10 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:Latest preview software release/Sharelin

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) 22:36, 17 June 2021 (UTC) reply

This template is not used anywhere right now. It was probably used at some point on Sharelin, which was deleted. Anton.bersh ( talk) 14:00, 10 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:Category count

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) 22:28, 17 June 2021 (UTC) reply

Template is used only in the creator's userpage, but if the feature is wanted, it can be merged into Template:Category count only with an optional parameter. Gonnym ( talk) 12:54, 10 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:STIB color

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) 22:26, 17 June 2021 (UTC) reply

Unused template that just removes the # from the output of one other template. Slightly broken because it gives u`"'[0x7F]# for two of its possible options. There is no particular reason to have such a template as the # is needed to actually use the color on a page. User:GKFX talk 06:53, 10 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:Witchcraft: a veneration of nature, higher powers & personal empowerment, with a true belief in the power of Earth, Her energy and how to work with it.

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; deleted as G2 by Plastikspork ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 15:10, 13 June 2021 (UTC) reply

Seems out of scope and is probably wrongly created in template space. Unused as well. Minorax ( talk) 06:32, 10 June 2021 (UTC) reply

Delete - I have given some feedback to the user. User:GKFX talk 17:32, 10 June 2021 (UTC) reply
Delete not a proper template. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:19, 10 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).

Temple Cup Champions

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 no consensus. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:58, 19 June 2021 (UTC) reply

The 1894 New York Giants template is unused unlike the Cleveland Spiders template, but both templates revolve around one of the first World Series precursors, which remains obscure in the world of Baseball. The Temple Cup was from 1894 to 1897. I don't think there is enough notability for it to have it's own templates for its respective winners. -- WikiCleanerMan ( talk) 22:21, 2 June 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno ( talk) 00:39, 10 June 2021 (UTC) reply
The argument for the Cleveland Spiders is that it's a template about an obscure pre-World Series Championship team. I doubt it's helpful for navagation since very few people are aware of the old Spiders team and the Temple Cup. -- WikiCleanerMan ( talk) 20:25, 10 June 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I don't know if we need sooooo many sports title templates (I think we don't), But these two seem to be just (almost) as legitimate as, say {{ 1953 New York Yankees}}. The said cup would be on WP, should WP exist in the 1890s :-), that is, it is notable, also it was the top professional baseball competition in the US by then. That is more notable, in 1890s terms, than maany current articles. The player in the NY template all have articles, so being currently unused is not a strong reason to delete (was it removed from articles? why?). - Nabla ( talk) 15:48, 18 June 2021 (UTC) reply
The 1894 Template was never removed and a template that was created and hasn't been used for the purpose it was created for is a reason to warrant deletion. However, the Temple Cup still remains obscure. Aside from the old Giants team and the Spiders, there isn't a template for the 1896 Baltimore Orioles team that won the cup that year. Your argument regarding the 1953 Yankees is different because they won the World Series and the World Series is far more notable than the Temple Cup. -- WikiCleanerMan ( talk) 16:08, 18 June 2021 (UTC) reply
There was no MLB at the time. The MLB was formally founded in the next century. -- WikiCleanerMan ( talk) 19:33, 18 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).
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 10

Template:AAOU

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) 22:20, 17 June 2021 (UTC) reply

Not linked anywhere. The mainspace article was deleted under G11 for Unambiguous advertising or promotion in June 2020. -- WikiCleanerMan ( talk) 21:53, 10 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:ABADI

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; deleted as G7 by Kirill Lokshin ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 06:04, 11 June 2021 (UTC) reply

All it does is list disambiguations, but never links to them or is used on them. The pages listed do in fact have their own disambiguation pages, thus a template like this is not needed. -- WikiCleanerMan ( talk) 21:53, 10 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:6502

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) 22:21, 17 June 2021 (UTC) reply

Both unused. The first is only used on a sandbox that hasn't been edited since 2014. The sandbox was a testing ground for an eventually accepted AfC which doesn't use 6502. -- WikiCleanerMan ( talk) 21:40, 10 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:AC destmap

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) 22:22, 17 June 2021 (UTC) reply

Supposedly this is for Air Canada. The map is not used anywhere nor any information can be gained from the highlighted countries as there is no explanation. -- WikiCleanerMan ( talk) 21:25, 10 June 2021 (UTC) reply

The commons deletion was a result of the map being unused and out of scope. This template also falls in that category since it is unsued. -- WikiCleanerMan ( talk) 20:40, 14 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).

B-Line Templates

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 relisted on 2021 June 17. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:36, 17 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:2020 USR-PLUS Alliance/meta/shortname

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) 22:23, 17 June 2021 (UTC) reply

Both are unused. The first I assume was a test page. The meta color nominated is superseded by Template:USR PLUS/meta/color. -- WikiCleanerMan ( talk) 20:32, 10 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:Decade readership

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) 22:35, 17 June 2021 (UTC) reply

Only used on one page. A decade is significantly too long to be of any real use for most pages and the scale gets messed up if there was any large spike in the past decade. The graph itself is trivial to generate through {{ Graph:PageViews|3650}}. -- Trialpears ( talk) 19:20, 10 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:Taxonomy/Prunella (bird)

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) 22:24, 17 June 2021 (UTC) reply

No longer transcluded anywhere, it looks like there was some redundancy with Template:Taxonomy/Prunella that I fixed up, so this is no longer needed. Template35 ( talk) 16:12, 10 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:Zhou Shen

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) 22:24, 17 June 2021 (UTC) reply

With only two directly-related articles to the main article, this template is overkill as it doesn't not further aid in navigation. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars Talk to me 15:51, 10 June 2021 (UTC) reply

Delete per nomination. User:GKFX talk 17:33, 10 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:Latest stable software release/Sharelin

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) 22:36, 17 June 2021 (UTC) reply

This template is not used anywhere right now. It was probably used at some point on Sharelin, which was deleted. Anton.bersh ( talk) 14:03, 10 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:Latest preview software release/Sharelin

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) 22:36, 17 June 2021 (UTC) reply

This template is not used anywhere right now. It was probably used at some point on Sharelin, which was deleted. Anton.bersh ( talk) 14:00, 10 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:Category count

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) 22:28, 17 June 2021 (UTC) reply

Template is used only in the creator's userpage, but if the feature is wanted, it can be merged into Template:Category count only with an optional parameter. Gonnym ( talk) 12:54, 10 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:STIB color

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) 22:26, 17 June 2021 (UTC) reply

Unused template that just removes the # from the output of one other template. Slightly broken because it gives u`"'[0x7F]# for two of its possible options. There is no particular reason to have such a template as the # is needed to actually use the color on a page. User:GKFX talk 06:53, 10 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:Witchcraft: a veneration of nature, higher powers & personal empowerment, with a true belief in the power of Earth, Her energy and how to work with it.

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; deleted as G2 by Plastikspork ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 15:10, 13 June 2021 (UTC) reply

Seems out of scope and is probably wrongly created in template space. Unused as well. Minorax ( talk) 06:32, 10 June 2021 (UTC) reply

Delete - I have given some feedback to the user. User:GKFX talk 17:32, 10 June 2021 (UTC) reply
Delete not a proper template. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:19, 10 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).

Temple Cup Champions

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 no consensus. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:58, 19 June 2021 (UTC) reply

The 1894 New York Giants template is unused unlike the Cleveland Spiders template, but both templates revolve around one of the first World Series precursors, which remains obscure in the world of Baseball. The Temple Cup was from 1894 to 1897. I don't think there is enough notability for it to have it's own templates for its respective winners. -- WikiCleanerMan ( talk) 22:21, 2 June 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno ( talk) 00:39, 10 June 2021 (UTC) reply
The argument for the Cleveland Spiders is that it's a template about an obscure pre-World Series Championship team. I doubt it's helpful for navagation since very few people are aware of the old Spiders team and the Temple Cup. -- WikiCleanerMan ( talk) 20:25, 10 June 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I don't know if we need sooooo many sports title templates (I think we don't), But these two seem to be just (almost) as legitimate as, say {{ 1953 New York Yankees}}. The said cup would be on WP, should WP exist in the 1890s :-), that is, it is notable, also it was the top professional baseball competition in the US by then. That is more notable, in 1890s terms, than maany current articles. The player in the NY template all have articles, so being currently unused is not a strong reason to delete (was it removed from articles? why?). - Nabla ( talk) 15:48, 18 June 2021 (UTC) reply
The 1894 Template was never removed and a template that was created and hasn't been used for the purpose it was created for is a reason to warrant deletion. However, the Temple Cup still remains obscure. Aside from the old Giants team and the Spiders, there isn't a template for the 1896 Baltimore Orioles team that won the cup that year. Your argument regarding the 1953 Yankees is different because they won the World Series and the World Series is far more notable than the Temple Cup. -- WikiCleanerMan ( talk) 16:08, 18 June 2021 (UTC) reply
There was no MLB at the time. The MLB was formally founded in the next century. -- WikiCleanerMan ( talk) 19:33, 18 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).

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook