Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Module:RfD

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was keep. JohnCD (talk) 21:27, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Module:RfD[edit]

This module is entirely unused, and actually is incorrect in many ways. The way to list something at WP:RFD is to list it at WP:RFD, and the regulars of which I am one are very forgiving if people make some techinical mistake, we take things on sentiment and then go and check the facts, we don't go on whether you're a kestrel or a knave. There is simply no need for this and it is getting in the way because it was created by someone who has never been at WP:RFD, never sought consensus for it to be created. Entirely unnecessary and blocking searches by its presence. Si Trew (talk) 21:07, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Absolutely nothing the nominator said is true. As you can see at Special:WhatLinksHere/Module:RfD, it is not unused. The proper way to list something at WP:RFD is not merely to add it to that page, as it is required that users using the redirect are aware of its nomination. What is it getting in the way of, and how is it "blocking searches by its presence"? Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:09, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
keep per Jackmcbarn. I would also add that the correct way to get this removed from redirect would be to Delete the template, not the module. The template uses the module but didn't always so if this were deleted the template could just restored to a pre-module state. But deleting the template would likely attract far more objections as more widely watched, on a more active deletion noticeboard. Deleting the module on its own makes no sense.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 21:25, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're probably misunderstanding what a module actually is. SiTrew, this is merely the code that generates the notice that is shown on the pages of redirects which are under discussion at WP:RFD. Alakzi (talk) 21:28, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my comment on the nominator's talk page. Per the discussion referenced in that diff (and Jackmcbarn can probably confirm this as well), one of the main reasons why Module:RfD was created was to allow nominated redirects with transclusions to not also transclude Template:Rfd on the pages which the redirect is transcluded. Per discussion on the referenced editor's talk page archives as well as Template talk:Rfd, Lua-izing the template was essentially the only way to accomplish my request/concern. Steel1943 (talk) 17:03, 20 April 2015 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.