Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 September 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 9 Deletion review archives: 2008 September September 11 >

10 September 2008[edit]

  • Denis Rancourt – Overturned, can be listed at AfD at editor discretion. I will remove the uncited statements, which should not be restored without a proper source per WP:BLP. – Chick Bowen 04:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Denis Rancourt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD) Denis Rancourt is a very notable person in the Ottawa area. The user who speedy deleted this page did so in a reactionary manner because he has no knowledge of this area and it's politics. Denis Rancourt is very notable and has been in the news several times in both local (Ottawa) and national (Canada) newspapers. A number of different incidents led him to be in the news. This was not just a one time news story which disappeared after one week. I think deletions like this are part of the reason for the deterioration of Wikipedia. Wikipedia should represent a whole worldview and not just US figures. I think the deletion by US users of Canadian content is a problematic practice.MiltonP Ottawa (talk) 01:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • So what was the indication of the subject's importance stated in the artice? --UsaSatsui (talk) 02:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the top of this page, the instructions state "Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first – courteously invite the admin to take a second look" (my italics). Your request to Orangemike was accusatory and posted 23 minutes before listing the review here. Why did you not give him enough time to respond to your comment? Stifle (talk) 09:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Frankly, I'm most offended by the accusation of being a clueless Yank! I can talk about Bob Rae's curious career path with some knowledge; I know about the kitten-eaters; I have friends who are Grits as well as NDP, and don't have to look up what BQ stands for. The article was about an obscure local professor against whom a local paper seems to have a bit of a vendetta; didn't appear to rise to the level of notability, and raised serious BLP concern as well. Despite incivility and the accusation of bigotry, I'm willing to restore the article to Milton's userspace for improvement, if that makes sense to my peers here. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've got two things going through my head here. First, I would have greatly prefered to have seen an AfD to decide whether or not this subject is notable. Whether or not it met the word of the CSD, it doesn't meet the spirit. However, the article as written does not give me confidence that it would have passed AfD on its own, so my thought is that the best solution here is to recreate a better article on the same subject. This version should be taken to AfD or PRODed rather than speedied again, and hopefully will be given some time to be worked on first (two days oughta' be good, in my mind, after recreation). Cheers, everyone. lifebaka++ 13:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore and optionally list at AfD Sufficient indications of notability--University professor in the news for a controversial course. This may or may not be notable, but its enough of an indication to require an AfD. My friend the deletor, despite our general agreement on almost all issues, seems to be under the general impression (based on many discussions with him) that saying that someone is the subject of political controversy or holds a notable position or has written some books, etc. is not an indication of notability. I agree totally that those things are not necessarily proofs of notability sufficient to pass AfD--but the bar for speedy is any indication, a deliberately very low standard to allow opportunity for discussion. Any article indicating anything which in good faith could be taken by a user is sufficient to p[ass speedy--speedy, as the policy says, is for unquestionable deletions--those where nobody could reasonably have doubt about the suitability for an article. Given that this article actually had Reliable sources with substantial coverage, this is a clear misunderstanding of the speedy criteria. As Lifebaka says, one need not have confidence that an article would pass AfD in its current state to know that its not a speedy. DGG (talk) 16:20, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In response to your question, User:Stifle. I suspect the only reason User:Orangemike deleted my article was that he found me through another user who I know as a friend here in Ottawa User:SmashTheState who OrangeMike has some kind of personally vendetta against. He previously deleted some of his articles. We're all Wobblies and OrangeMike seems to disagree with Smash's more radical politics. I assumed a bad faith delete and asked for a deletion review instead of communicating directing with OrangeMike who I had already heard complaints about from SmashTheState.
In response to the notability of Denis Rancourt. There are articles on Ward Churchill and other professors I would label (fairly or unfairly) as radical ideological professors. I think that Denis Rancourt is just as notable but perhaps doesn't receive the same media attention (in the USA) that Ward Churchill does.
In further response to the suggestion that the Ottawa Citizen was the only media outlet covering Denis Rancourt and perhaps had some beef with him. Rancourt has received national media attention outside of the Citizen, as well as their affiliated Canwest newspapers. The Ottawa Sun also reported on Rancourt. A timely article appears here on their website Denis the 'menace'. I hope this is enough information to get the article recreated or for their at least to be a proper nomination for deletion which can be fully challenged.MiltonP Ottawa (talk) 22:07, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will defend OM against this charge. Quite irrespective of differences in politics, and what may have led him to this article, OM's speedy was not particularly unusual-- I think he's using the wrong standard, a matter for friendly discussion, but i do not think it shows personal involvement or bias. And, by the by, media coverage is one of the key factors in notability, something to keep in mind when you defend the article at AfD. DGG (talk) 23:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and optionally AFD as the article asserts notability. Stifle (talk) 22:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Seems to be enough serious news articles in Google News Canada that an A7 Speedy isn't valid. Nfitz (talk) 01:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn as yet another misinterpretation of A7. TotientDragooned (talk) 06:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Space Battleship Yamato (spaceship) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)

This article was deleted in what was basically a snowball AfD on the 9th. Most of the keep votes contested the inadequacy of the nomination. The nomination itself suggested that the subject "might be notable", although the nominator later ammended this (at my suggestion) to say "Originally I believed this article was notable cause because I assumed the ship in question was the equivalent to the Starship enterprise. But this article lacks reliable third person information and on further investigation I believe this article fails under the criteria of excessive and useless info." Some keep votes made clear, emphatic statements that the subject was notable. The few delete votes noted that reliable sources that covered the subject were neither cited nor found in a reasonable search (Disclosure, I did most of the talking in that AfD). User:Seicer closed the debate as keep, later noting that the keep points regarding the nomination were a valid reason for closure. While I don't disagree with that, I would like to bring this to review in order to get a consensus to relist the article with a proper nomination. I'm aware I can just wait a few months and renominate this article, I would rather not have to explain away a past resounding keep. Protonk (talk) 00:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If relisting is warranted because of an improper rationale that was later corrected, I would support that. seicer | talk | contribs 01:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reslisting is fine. An esentially procedural "keep" resulting from a flawed, though good faith, nomination should be accorded no precedential value. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist per Eluchil404. Stifle (talk) 09:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It sounds like you're asking for the go-ahead to renominate, but you really don't need DRV for that. It'd likely be better to start with a clean AfD, if for no other reason than to make it easier for the closing admin to figure out (most of the older AfD would likely be invalidated by the new discussion anyways). Cheers, everyone. lifebaka++ 15:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kind of. I'm really asking for some consensus to do that 'early'. Because I was heavily involved in the older AfD, I don't feel it is appropriate for me to turn right around and renominate it because I didn't get 'what I want' (as it were). I know we aren't a bureaucracy, but I would feel better if I had some third party consensus that the old AfD consensus related primarily to the shortcomings in the nomination. Protonk (talk) 17:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Black Rose (Cher album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)

Some lawyer has blanked the page, then added his/her letter which alleges 15,000 copyright violations on YouTube (or by YouTube). Administrators please look into this; I'm not qualified to evaluate or change the page as it is.Fconaway (talk) 22:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Anne Kilkenny (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)

I can't find any record of this deletion in the log. Neither can I find any discussion of it. The cached page indicated it was proposed fore deletion due to lack of notability. However, google returned thousands of references to the subject, including pictures of her with Sarah Palin. Can we reopen this issue. The deletion seems starkly political. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.174.110.5 (talk • contribs)

  • Comment AfD is linked above. it's courtesy blanked but the information is still available TravellingCari 20:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the deletion review page, there is an instruction "Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first – courteously invite the admin to take a second look". I haven't noticed this discussion taking place. Can the nominator please explain why (or point out where the discussion was, as I may have missed it)? Stifle (talk) 09:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse deletion, no indication given why the AFD was invalid at all. Stifle (talk) 15:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A case of missing logs, which I've fixed. I don't see any reason given above to overturn or look at the AfD closure. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Properly deleted though frankly I do not see why the afd was hidden for privacy reasons, and i would like some explanation of that. As I argued at the afd, when some totally unnotable person is interviewed about a candidate, it doesn't make that person notable no matter how often the interview is republished. One had to do something notable to be notable. I tend to be flexible about what, or how much, but this is ridiculous--it amounts to making an article in Wikipedia for each article in the press. DGG (talk) 00:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Surely at a minimum this should be a redirect? There is a lot of international news media coverage about this person, including new quotes at [1]. However this person isn't mentioned at Sarah Palin#Mayor of Wasilla which is where one would think it would be, if it was I'd simply say redirect. But if not, it should be overturned, or merged. It's hard to judge the validity of the original AfD, I'd have said no consensus, but the closing Admin provided no justification, which doesn't seem right given how much debate there was. Nfitz (talk) 01:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse with no redirect. Everyone who knows Palin does not deserve a redirect to her article. Synergy 19:10, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Many of these political AFDs have been attracting lots of partisans who don't care about Wikipedia but do care about politics. Closers need to, as this one did, separate the crud from the folks who are trying to apply Wikipedia's standards. The closer did so, and made a close within reasonable discretion, and indeed more likely right than not. Once the AFD was found, the nominator here has no remaining valid argument. GRBerry 03:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Hugh Jeffery Ward (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)

This is my own deletion. A protest has been made on my talk page. I speedied under G10 as a BLP problematic article. The page provided a single book source (appears to be reliable) under a references section and is focused entirely on the subject's criminal activities and sentence. It was tagged as an A7 which, with a reliable source cited, I did not think it met (though I do think notability is questionable), but I felt an article on this living person, with no inline citations, with that focus, should not hang around another second. This may be a liberal interpretation of WP:BLP so I'm really here for a second opinion. I know this is an odd DRV listing procedurally, but I do not wish to restore and let it sit for five days while at AfD when BLP issues are involved.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice as copyvio [2]. I think notability and verifiability is mostly OK, though the various online versions of the story differ enough that creating a consistent article would be tricky [3] [4] (I hope these links are persistent!) Regards, Ben Aveling 12:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore, stubbify, and source N and V are acceptable. The principal paragraph is copyvio, though the introduction seems OK. Though not a very major crime, it is notable anyway for its historical value. I think it will pass afd. DGG (talk) 13:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • restore/stubbify per DGG. Lack of inline citations does not a BLP violation make. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just spent a few minutes working, and I've got a stubbed version at User:Lifebaka/Sandbox/Hugh Ward that's better. Of course, I know nothing about the guy and didn't even do a Google search, so I'm sure there's more info out there. I'm all for restoration and stubbifying, regardless of who actually does the legwork. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka++ 15:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Patricia Araujo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)

2 users who started discussion are sock puppets of same user and now they are blocked. 2 other users list obscure personal opinions UrSuS (talk) 07:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse own deletion, there was no opposition to the deletion and the sockmaster (JJGD) did not contribute to it himself, so nothing procedurally wrong. Open to changing if the nominator can overcome the primary argument of lack of sourcing. Stifle (talk) 08:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse deletion I can not see how there was much likelihood of a keep in any case. I don't really see notability, not matter how it might be argued. DGG (talk) 13:23, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion Process followed, consensus clear. MBisanz talk 15:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Template:Support – Continued deletion endorsed. The community's general feeling doesn't seem to have changed significantly since last time. – Chick Bowen 04:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
note to closer and discussion participants - "they would only be used in lieu of proper discussion" is not a rationale as their use would be no different from the use of '''support''' - if this is your reason, save your bytes and just type "*'''endorse deletion''' ~~~~--Random832 (contribs) 20:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Support (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore | cache)

This template, along with Oppose, Neutral and Question, were deleted because it was felt that the icons they contained ( and ) encourage people to believe that AFD etc are a vote. There seems to be no objection to the existence of the templates, other than the icons, and I propose that for consistency with commons and other wikis, and as per discussion at AN, we should: 1. reenable creation of these templates; 2. create templates following the example in User:BenAveling/support; and 3. permanent protect the templates. Regards Ben Aveling 00:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Seems fine to me. I always felt that the oppositions to the icons on face had sort of a tinfoil hat character. AfD isn't a vote (but it was) and these templates don't make it a vote anymore than bolding the words "Delete" do. I am however, willing to be persuaded that this isn't necessary because we have roughly equivalent userspace templates right now. The other arguments (server space, "changing opinion", "debasing debate" etc) don't hold much water with me. Protonk (talk) 02:23, 10 September 2008 (UTC) Wow. Reading failure. I guess I didn't notice the part about "no icons". In that case I'm fine with these being created but not all that excited. I would probably never use them, as it seems easier to bold a word than enclose and pipe a template, but that's just me. Protonk (talk) 13:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Awesome. --NE2 03:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd accept their use at RfA if they did not have icons, on the grounds that the discussions there are so much in need of improvement that anything is worth the try. "Support" is not usually what one says at AfD, in any case, but keep/delete/etc. and I would encourage people to give more nuanced opinions in any case. eg "keep or at worst merge." Changing AfD to any extent towards an explicit vote is the opposite direction from where we should go. DGG (talk) 04:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed; they don't have icons. Good catch that keep/delete/... would also be needed. Regards, Ben Aveling 09:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a link to any discussion of these deletions? Spartaz Humbug! 05:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC) Slow day. By the way endorse deletion. Very clear consensus in the discussion and I can't see any evidence that consensus has changed. Spartaz Humbug! 06:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not proposing recreating those templates - the templates I'd like to see do not have icons and they complain, ever so politely, if no reason is provided. See below. Regards, Ben Aveling 09:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment wasn't this just covered a couple of months back? has anything changed since? If we want consistency with the other wiki's perhaps we should change our notability standards, image policies, deletion polices, rfa's etc. In the scheme of things not using these templates here would seem one of the least confusing parts --82.7.39.174 (talk) 06:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The objection then, as originally, was that people would be mislead by the icons into thinking that AFD, etc is a vote. Regards, Ben Aveling 09:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS. I'd rather see certain other wikis adopt some policies we have, but this is simple way to avoid a small typo that I've made a lot of times, and I've seen other people do it too. So long as we don't add icons, what does it hurt? Regards, Ben Aveling 09:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted, they would only be used in lieu of proper discussion at RFAs/AFDs/etc. Stifle (talk) 08:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A problem we already have. These templates should actually help - as per discussion at AN, if no argument is given, bolding does not happen and a warning is given. Eg:
No parameter provided: *{{User:BenAveling/support}} expands to:
Parameter provided: * {{User:BenAveling/support|Consistency with other wikis}} expands to:
  • Support: Consistency with other wikis
Regards, Ben Aveling 09:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm leaning towards keeping deleted. I don't see consistency as a particularly strong rationale, and I can't see how these will improve things. What is the difference between Support and support (no rationale given)? The latter feels a little to pointy or dickish to me. Hiding T 10:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For AFD or DRV, saying Keep or Delete or Support without also providing a reason carries basically no weight and has very little value. See User:BenAveling/!Vote. support (no rationale given) also carries little to no weight, but it makes that explicit. Basically, requiring the parameter reminds people to discuss, not just to vote. Regards, Ben Aveling 11:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree that it makes it any more explicit. I also think DRV is a bad example, because it is the one place where issues get discussed. Since it is predominately populated by admins, that may have some bearing, and it also has some bearing on why I don't think this is needed. Admins know how to close debates, they don't need to have a little template point it out. I'm also unsure how the template is supposed to work. If a user adds his comment in the form of this template, it seems to me the user is already aware of the fact that a rationale is needed. And if a user soen't use the template, what is being proposed? We amend their comment, something I'd be against? No, I think I'm leaning even further towards keep deleted. I think this is an area where we should WP:KISS. I remember being a newbie and how intimidating it was simply working out how to do a bullet and bold typing. Let's not force templates on people too. Hiding T 12:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't planning on making it mandatory... I don't see how you could. The main reason I've proposed having these templates is that I use them on Commons and it's a nuisance having to remember that on en, I have to use '''. I just figure that most people will follow what other people do, even if they don't really understand why, so perhaps some good might come. I agree that most people at DRV have clue, but I've seen plenty that don't - they're the ones that are there because they don't understand what happened at AFD. Cheers, Ben Aveling 12:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hah. So we're all supposed to change what we do to suit you. :) Nah, realistically I can't see that this will have any more impact. You can clue in some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can't clue in all of the people all of the time. Hiding T 12:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure I can support this particular proposal (User:BenAveling/support). What if someone uses the template on RFA or the upcoming arbcom elections? "support (no rationale given)" seems pretty BITEy to me, and "Note: Failure to provide a reason will result in a warning." is simply not acceptable. If someone writes "Support. ~~~~" at an RFA, we ask them to provide a reason. We don't warn them. So.. why can't {{support}} solely consist of '''Support'''? I'd Support that. :) --Conti|✉ 13:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. These are already userfied in a few places, and you're moew than welcome to userfy it again for your own use, but there's a clear consensus that it shouldn't be in mainspace. Same with the templates, go ahead and use them if you like, but it seems like it just makes the XFD's more confusing. --UsaSatsui (talk) 14:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Not to be BEANS-y, but * {{User:BenAveling/support|Per nom}} . There, you'll never see "no rationale given" again. I'm with the others who are concerned that this will be used in place of proper discussion. And while I understand that yes, we already have this problem, I don't think making it easier to vote via a template is going to solve the problem. --Kbdank71 16:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • {{comment}} How would {{support}} be any more liable to be used in lieu of proper discussion than '''support''' is now? How would it be worse? --Random832 (contribs) 20:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • As I said, making it easier to circumvent discussion is not solving the problem at all (Nor is your "save your bytes" comment above, for that matter). That's how it would be worse. --Kbdank71 21:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I object to the complexity of BenAveling's version - this should simply expand to '''support''' alone for usage-compatibility with the versions on other wikis. --Random832 (contribs) 20:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which makes it even easier to vote. --Kbdank71 21:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - This has the potential to quite a bit of what I would consider rather unnecessary transclusion. (Wasn't there a consensus that transclusion in signatures was bad for similar reasons?). As such, I would support MfD for all these userfied versions too. - jc37 21:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm just going to reiterate what was said at the last DRV. Consensus there was that there's no good reason to restore the templates (which I agree with, they're kinda' pointless) but userspace versions (such as mine at User:Lifebaka/+, User:Lifebaka/-, and User:Lifebaka/=) are just fine. So just keep yours in your userspace and everything's cool as far as I can see. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Right but the previous templates had icons. This is just alternate markup for the same thing people already do. If you don't like voting, there are surely more productive ways to prevent it than to micromanage the markup people use to vote. --Random832 (contribs) 15:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion and do not create version described above (no icons). Transclusion cost is too high. If anybody ever changed the template (capitalize a letter, change to italicized text, etc, then the server would have to update all of those transclusions. If we told people to subst them instead, then they'd be typing way much more than to just enter it themselves. What possible gain is there to this suggestion? And how about if somebody changed the support template to "delete"? Vandalism affecting all proposal pages at once? Bad idea... brings no good and some bad, so no. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 18:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You have conveyed much of what I was thinking when I commented above. - jc37 00:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion The only obvious net effect of restoring these would be to promote inconsistent formatting in the discussions where they're used. Not sure why we'd want that. (As an aside, the "save your bytes" message strikes me as inappropriate.) Townlake (talk) 14:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per Jerry. Icons such as this are not needed on the English Wikipedia because presumably anybody participating in a discussion where they might be used can communicate in English. By contrast, on Commons or the Meta-Wiki, they might be more useful, since there might be discussion participants there who prefer to communicate in a variety of languages. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per Jerry. As Kbdank71 notes, people can very easily bypass giving an actual "reason" by typing "per nom" or ~~~~ (that's how {{relist}} works). The negative consequences of having and using these templates (gives the impression of a vote, transclusion load, colourful icons that draw attention away from the text) far exceed the few possible advantages. –Black Falcon (Talk) 00:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sorry, but what icons are you referring to here? I'm sorry, but complaining about icons when the templates don't have icons, or complaining about inconsistent formatting when templates actually enforce consistent formatting, or worrying about people vandalising the templates when part of the proposal is that the templates be protected, well, I'm sorry again, but these are all examples of the reasons that AFD/DR is not a vote. Regards, Ben Aveling 01:10, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • My apologies regarding the "icons" comment: I mixed up the deleted templates and User:BenAveling/support. I've stricken that part of my comment as inapplicable. However, where have I complained about (or mentioned, for that matter) inconsistent formatting or vandalism? Jerry mentioned vandalism, but "per Jerry" doesn't necessarily mean "per everything Jerry wrote". If I was unclear in my first comment, let me try again: Delete - use of these templates would create significant transclusion load (as well as slow loading speeds on XfD pages) for little or no benefit (formatting consistency is not strictly necessary and perhaps not even desirable, since XfDs are supposed to be discussions and not votes). –Black Falcon (Talk) 01:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as the TfD consensus was clear. TotientDragooned (talk) 04:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted but unprotect. I didn't realize the last deletion discussion was 3 years old. Let him create his icon-less templates: TfD, not deletion review, is the place to discuss if consensus has changed. TotientDragooned (talk) 04:59, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted per Jerry, this is unnecessary transclusion, and its made worse (server-wise) by requiring a parameter. Further, by requiring a parameter, its no longer consistent with other wikis, so one of the only real benefits is gone. Mr.Z-man 16:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_September_10&oldid=1140524784"