May 23
Template:Img-confirmation
- 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 debate was delete - common sense and low-impact. Happy‑ melon 15:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Template states that permission for images has been sent to the PR department (now the Communications committee) to release the work under the GFDL. All permissions are now logged with OTRS and the relevant template (eg {{ PermissionOTRS}}) should be used instead. The template is currently unused and should be deleted. matt br 18:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- 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:French-Canadian television classics
- 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 debate was delete. Singu larity 06:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Completely subjective and POV template. One person's classic is another person's dreck. No way to make this objective. — Woohookitty Woohoo! 05:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- Moderate delete Agreed about the POVness. And since the majority of the template is redlinked anyway, I don't see how we could benefit by keeping it. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 11:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete "Classics" is a violation of Neutral point of view UnitedStatesian ( talk) 16:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - Apart from the fact that it is a massive NPOV violation due to the inherently subjective inclusion criteria, most of the links are red. While this is not a bad thing per se, when coupled with the first it makes this template thoroughly useless. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 17:28, May 23, 2008 (UTC)
- Delete – as per nom. Jared Preston ( talk) 11:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Having primarily redlinks is not an argument if those links are notable, such as they are here. I checked, suspecting that maybe this was a programming block of vintage TV or a DVD series, but these would not be enough to make a template out of anyway. Circeus ( talk) 01:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete – too many red links to be useful, also very POV -- T- rex 14:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
- 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.
May 23
Template:Img-confirmation
- 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 debate was delete - common sense and low-impact. Happy‑ melon 15:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Template states that permission for images has been sent to the PR department (now the Communications committee) to release the work under the GFDL. All permissions are now logged with OTRS and the relevant template (eg {{ PermissionOTRS}}) should be used instead. The template is currently unused and should be deleted. matt br 18:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- 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:French-Canadian television classics
- 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 debate was delete. Singu larity 06:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Completely subjective and POV template. One person's classic is another person's dreck. No way to make this objective. — Woohookitty Woohoo! 05:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- Moderate delete Agreed about the POVness. And since the majority of the template is redlinked anyway, I don't see how we could benefit by keeping it. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 11:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete "Classics" is a violation of Neutral point of view UnitedStatesian ( talk) 16:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - Apart from the fact that it is a massive NPOV violation due to the inherently subjective inclusion criteria, most of the links are red. While this is not a bad thing per se, when coupled with the first it makes this template thoroughly useless. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 17:28, May 23, 2008 (UTC)
- Delete – as per nom. Jared Preston ( talk) 11:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Having primarily redlinks is not an argument if those links are notable, such as they are here. I checked, suspecting that maybe this was a programming block of vintage TV or a DVD series, but these would not be enough to make a template out of anyway. Circeus ( talk) 01:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete – too many red links to be useful, also very POV -- T- rex 14:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
- 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.