Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 January 17

< January 16	January 18 >

January 17

Template:User Pessimist

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).

The result of the discussion was close and relist at MFD. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 16:28, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Pessimist (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused userbox. Stefan2 (talk) 23:41, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question Do we still send userboxes to MfD, or can we discuss them here, now? —PC-XT+ 06:07, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:MFD userboxes deletion discussions do not go here. That said, I support the deletion because no one uses it. – S. Rich (talk) 03:19, 20 January 2016 (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:La Liga Champions

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 16:29, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:La Liga Champions (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not needed and unnecessary. Not warrant a template. Kante4 (talk) 21:49, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not needed. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:55, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unnecessary. TheBigJagielka (talk) 23:51, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely unnecessary. Coderzombie (talk) 04:59, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I see no use for it (not needed and unnecessary). We dont need a template for this. Qed237 (talk) 11:33, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If there would be an article for each champions season (something like "1982–83 Athletic Club season"), then I most probably would vote as keep, but in this version - delete. --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 12:01, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:33, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - useful navigation between champions. Inclusion is defined and notable. Giant Snowman 19:38, 18 January 2016 (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:I-League Champions

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).

The result of the discussion was relist to Jan 28. Primefac (talk) 04:26, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:I-League Champions (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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:Hans-Hermann Hoppe

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).

The result of the discussion was relist to Jan 28. Primefac (talk) 04:27, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Hans-Hermann Hoppe (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not used. Was a listing of H-H H books that now contains 2 titles. – S. Rich (talk) 04:58, 17 January 2016 (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:Supercentenarian deaths by year

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 16:33, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Supercentenarian deaths by year (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned template now just containing redlinks. Ricky81682 (talk) 01:58, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as cleanup. All articles were deleted Legacypac (talk) 02:12, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unused —PC-XT+ 02:33, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' - Cruft, and even worse, it's completely unlinked cruft. Serves no valid navigation purpose, while failing multiple WP:NAVBOX criteria. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 08:46, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:LISTCRUFT. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:53, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unused and not notable. Qed237 (talk) 11:38, 18 January 2016 (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:Batsmen with an ODI average above 40 & strike rate above 90

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 16:34, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Batsmen with an ODI average above 40 & strike rate above 90 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Simply unnecessary template. — Swastik Chakraborty (User talk) 09:44, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:LISTCRUFT. Template with arbitrary values (why strike rate 90 and not 100 for example?) Joseph2302 (talk) 21:54, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as said by Joseph2302 it looks like completely arbitrary numbers and WP:LISTCRUFT. Qed237 (talk) 11:37, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Chris8924 (talk) 06:48, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if the significance of 40 ODI and 90 strike rate are explained in the documentation, preferably with a reference. As I understand it, the batting average over a career typically goes up to 40, and a strike rate over 90 is considered exceptional, but I don't have a good reference of these numbers, at least not using them together like this. —PC-XT+ 10:20, 19 January 2016 (UTC) Otherwise delete. (Considering the discussion since my !vote, I am doubting there is such a source, and wanted to make this clear. Without a source, there is no possibility of an appropriate article.) —PC-XT+ 21:24, 24 January 2016 (UTC) 11:38, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; the "90" is terribly arbitrary - if anything "100" is the SR spoken of as the benchmark in ODI performance. St Anselm (talk) 02:38, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above. 198.96.34.51 (talk) 03:35, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Template fails multiple WP:NAVBOX criteria, and most importantly it lacks an article or list on the specific subject of the navbox. Guys, this is WP:NOTSTATS at its worst, in the absence of an article or list -- well sourced with significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable, secondary sources -- that explains the significance of these combined cricket stats, this template has no valid reason for existence. I remind everyone that the burden is on the "keep" proponents to demonstrate the significance of the navbox subject and that the NAVBOX criteria have been reasonably satisfied. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 09:56, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Unlike other statistical templates, this is the most important statistic for batsmen in ODIs. Fgkjvfo (talk) 15:15, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If, as you say, this is the most important statistic for batsmen in ODIs, where is the stand-alone article or list on this specific subject? Please remember: navboxes are not for banner-hanging of purported awards, honors and accomplishments; they are supposed to serve the primary purpose of aidng reader navigation among closely related subjects. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:43, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Dirtlawyer1, i.e. fails guideline #4 of WP:NAVBOX: There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template. - HyperGaruda (talk) 22:15, 24 January 2016 (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).