Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 January 13
| < January 12 | January 14 > |
|---|
January 13[edit]
Template:Current Men's Doubles Team ATP Rankings[edit]
- 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 discussion was Delete. The argument given for "keep" may be a justification for having the information in an article, but it does not address the reasons given for deleting this template. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:14, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
- Template:CcLOSIurrent Men's Doubles Team ATP Rankings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Has been unused and not edited since August 2012. The material is currently edited directly into the annual ATP World Tour article (eg 2014 ATP World Tour), the only place where it appears on Wikipedia. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 09:12, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- delete, out of date. Frietjes (talk) 23:26, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
- Keep They are critical to tennis system and seeding system, so we need them on here to explain points and standings throughout the year.HotHat (talk) 11:58, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
- Delete This has nothing useful linking to it and is now obsolete in my opinion as the job is being done on the ATP World Tour article.Fazzo29 (talk) 14:21, 20 January 2014 (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:TNA Hall of Fame[edit]
- 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 discussion was Delete. Apart from the numerical majority (2:1) in favour of deletion, the "delete" arguments are cogent reasons, whereas the "keep" arguments aren't. "It shouldn't matter..." amounts to "I like it"; " the 5 rule isn't set it stone" means that exceptions can be made, but doesn't explain why an exception should be made in this case, and I am really not sure what it means to say that a template is "notable". JamesBWatson (talk) 09:23, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Per WP:NENAN due to linking to less then five articles in the template (there wont be at least five links for another three years). Navigation between the two links is easily attainable by the subject's main article. STATic message me! 02:27, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- Keep The Template itself is notable as is the Hall of Fame. It shouldnt matter if only a few are in it, we should still have one linking to the sections. And by the way it does link 5 articles. Also the "5 rule" isnt set it stone. If its going to eventually have lots, why not have it now and besides it notability alone should get it one. BlackDragon 23:12, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- The point of a navigation template is to navigate between relevant articles where this template would also be present. As for, "If its going to eventually have lots, why not have it now", see WP:CRYSTAL, the way the company is going, it might not even be around in five years. STATic message me! 18:45, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
- Delete. Now, template has only 2 names. Maybe, in 5 years, when the template will have 7names. Now, not--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:11, 19 January 2014 (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.