Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 May 25

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, just about. The topic does not have enough articles to justify a navigational template at this time. Happy‑melon 16:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Template:Front Row Motorsports (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Team is not notable enough for a template. Teams like Hendrick Motorsports and Roush Fenway Racing have earned them due to success and increased partnerships. D-Day (talk) 21:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Success does not dictate if a topic gets a nav template or not. The main factors that are important are the number of articles and the usefulness of the template. -- Ned Scott 07:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

In that case, very few articles are needed for this template. It doesn't serve much of a purpose, since all of the articles already link back to that template. --D-Day (talk) 12:17, 26 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.

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 no consensus Happy‑melon 16:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Template:British songs (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

As per Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_May_15#Template:Irish_songs and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of patriotic songs— Gnevin (talk) 20:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Bearcat (talk) 15:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Keep A convenient navigation tool, providing a list that is otherwise lacking on Wikipedia. FusionWarrior (talk) 21:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete as per nom. Define partiotic, possibly fails WP:OR. Snappy56 (talk) 03:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - far too vague template, and I'm not convinced there's any need to navigate between these articles. If it is needed, a category would be better, as it could specify precise inclusion criteria. Terraxos (talk) 23:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - I've used this in past, and think it is quite a useful navigation template of songs which can broadly be defined as patriotic in Britain - most of them are used at state events, i.e. Remembrance Day, coronations of monarchs, or occassions of a focus of national patriotism, i.e. the Last Night of the Proms. All the regional and proposed individual nations' anthems are here too. It could perhaps do with a bit of re-ordering, i.e by individual country (England, Wales, etc). Also, surely if we get rid of this, then Template:American songs, which is just as useful, will have to go to? Rob (talk) 18:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I really don't know how anyone can vote keep when both a peer template and its parent article have been deleted Gnevin (talk) 19:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - as I mentioned, there is still Template:American songs and its parent article, so presumably that will have to go too. I don't remember ever seeing this template's parent article, so it's difficult to know if could have been salvaged. I've had a go at re-ordering this into suitable groupings, although I was surprised at the number of Cornish entries and have made that into a separate section, despite it being officially part of England. I do wonder whether it ought be trimmed down. Rob (talk) 20:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
• Reply - Nominating for AFD and TFD Gnevin (talk) 20:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - To my knowledge (and prior to your nominations Gnevin) Ireland, the UK, the USA, Sweden and China had 'patriotic songs' navboxes and various other countries have 'patriotic songs' categories. This isn't an attempt to argue that 'other stuff exists', but rather the belief that there is obviously some demand for a gathering of this type of song. However, I do agree that most of the lists could stand to be pruned, and perhaps it won't be easy to keep them acceptable, but I think we could at least be given the opportunity to try. Regards, FusionWarrior (talk) 00:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

CommentFind a WP:V non WP:OR way to define patriotic songs and i'd support a keep, Sure Northern Ireland is part of Britain ,shall we add A Nation Once Again,Boys of the Old Brigade,The Sash or Come Out Ye Black And Tans too this template? Gnevin (talk) 07:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete because it is impossible to define which songs are patriotic or simply British songs. Also, the Patriotic music of Ireland template was deleted. --MaxPride (talk) 23:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, on probation "British songs" is clearly over-broad, but "Patriotic music of the United Kingdom" (the current title) ought to be tenable. There are many songs that undeniably fit in the category, and it is valuable to have such a navigational aid. On the other hand, I see the border-defining problem. The only solution I can see is that the definition of whether a song is "patriotic" needs to be made by a reliable source, and not by WP. I'd like to give it a chance, but if significant improvement cannot be made, I would support deletion next time. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 03:11, 1 June 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.

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 Happy‑melon 15:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Template:Campeonato Assotiation da Guiné-Bissau (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

There's no such league nor teams. The lower league is [1]. — Calapez (talk) 15:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - template listing non existent teams [?!] whose articles are currently up for AfD. Articles are likely hoaxes, making template useless. RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ 20:26, May 16, 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom. Cheers. _{Trance addict - Tiesto - Above and Beyond} 04:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
After seeing that per the relevant AfDs the teams indeed exist, I thought that the discussion here about the league needs some updating, and the arguments further documentation. Therefore, relisted! Thank you!--Yannismarou (talk) 12:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC) 04:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - per nom. Snappy56 (talk) 06:27, 31 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.

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 as unuseed and redundant to an existing template Yannismarou (talk) 12:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Template:Northern Ireland Assembly Parties (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This template is unused and is redundant to Template:Political parties in Northern Ireland. The editor who created it was probably unaware of the other existing template. It should be deleted. Snappy56 (talk) 11:53, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - entirely redundant to existing template. Terraxos (talk) 23:21, 27 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.