< October 28	October 30 >

October 29

Template:Colorado Avalanche seasons

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 page.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 03:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Already transcluded in ((Colorado Avalanche)); no reason for this template to exist.. Jmlk 1 7 22:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as obsolete. Its colours are horrendous also, just like the obsoletor. They should be colorblind compliant, and they're far from that. --lincalinca 00:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant to ((Colorado Avalanche)) - and not being colourblind, I had problems reading the black on maroon! SkierRMH 04:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this template is now redundant. Yamaguchi先生 19:10, 6 November 2007 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Nndb name

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 04:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having a template is an endorsement of this website. The website lists no references in its articles and is in my opinion not a reliable source. There is no workable system of correcting errors as I have found on submitting numerous corrections which were ignored. The template has been previously nominated for deletion here and here. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 20:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Previous discussions:

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 April 13#Template:Nndb name Result, no consensus, keep
Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 January 13#Template:Nndb name Result: keep.

Keep An external link doesn't have to be a reliable source to be a valid external link. All it has to do is to demonstrate that it is useful to the article per the guidelines at Wikipedia:External links. However, the nominator has not made any arguments that linking to this particular site is not useful or that the inclusion of the link was linkspam. --Farix (Talk) 20:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I believe a template is an endorsement to some degree, of the reliability of that website. Linking to a site is in my opinion not useful if it is not a site comes from an established organization, or, if it isn't an established organization, it allows corrections and discussions about inaccuracies that are viewable to all readers as they are on Wikipedia. There is no indication on looking at a notable names database article that anything may not be correct as there are no talkpages where corrections can be publicly posted or tags that can be placed marking inaccuracies that can be seen by others. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 22:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As others have already stated, an external link does not constitute an endorsement of the website. Also, Wikipedia cannot and does not guarantee the accuracy of the contents of external links. The main guidelines on external links is found at Wikipedia:External links. To sum it up, so long as the link adds meaningful value—which should be determined on an article by article bases and not Wikipedia-wide—and does not fall into one of the "Links normally to be avoided" or "Restrictions on linking" criteria, it is permitted. However, you have yet to point out how the external links created by this particular template would never conform with Wikipedia:External links. The only argument that you have managed is that it is potentially unreliable and unsourced, which isn't enough to prohibit the link under Wikipedia:External links. --Farix (Talk) 01:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:EL. You are drstically mistating the guideline. And additionally WP:BLP is policy, not just a guideline. The criteria for adding external links is not that they add "meaningful value". That's frankly just silly. And of course the standard is wikipedia-wide. Just because an article is poor doesn't mean you can add lower quality links to that article! Whether this template should exist or not is one thing, but the guideline for external links and biographies aren't going to be rewritten here just so this template can be kept. 2005 23:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP#External_links says "External links in biographies of living persons must be of high quality and in full compliance with Wikipedia official policies and external links guidelines." I do not think NNDB qualifies. We have to keep in mind that we're talking about the biographies of people here. --Pixelface 19:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is my opinion that NNDB does meet our style guideline for external links as well as that subsection of policy. If you find a specific link or set of links which you object to, then by all means please do remove them, but I hardly find it necessary to throw the baby out with the bathwater so to speak. RFerreira 00:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - an external link isn't an endorsement and even though they don't cite reliable sources doesn't mean they don't have them. I'm sure if you contacted them, they'd be able to provide their references, but some people and organisations prefer to keep their sources and resources private unless requested, as a matter of prudent business practice. They're not an encyclopedia as Wikipedia is and, as such, isn't required to report on their secondary resources. Also, an external link may provide original research. We don't have to provide a disclaimer for this, as there's a "disclaimers" link on the footnote of every article and page in the whole place, one of which relates to external links. This inclusion is no different to having the ((youtube)) template, linking to a commonly used webresource. --lincalinca 00:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just looked at the site and to update the info, you use the link http://commentary.nndb.com/submit/feedback/?id= which is located at the bottom of the page. There's nothing immediate like here, but it's not a Wikia, so its immediacy can't be expected. It's just like IMDB, which is also not a watertight resource, but is broadly considered to be as reliable, and sometime smore reliable, than Wikipedia. --lincalinca 00:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB is considered reliable when it comes to filmographies and cast information, etc. I realize that anyone can submit info to IMDB so I don't think IMDB bio pages or trivia pages can be considered reliable. Since we are talking about people's biographies on Wikipedia, WP:BLP#External_links says "External links in biographies of living persons must be of high quality and in full compliance with Wikipedia official policies and external links guidelines." I do not think NNDB qualifies. --Pixelface 19:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Nomination is misjudged. A template is not an endorsement. The info from a random sample of articles seemed reliable enough to me. Being ignored is not proof that "there is no workable system of correcting errors"; and, besides, plenty of sites have no way to correct errors—that doesn't mean linking to them is forbidden—and there are disclaimers here about external links. Having previous deletion nominations adds no weight to this one—especially when the result in both cases was Keep.

The nominator, to me, seems to have confused justification for linking to the site on specific articles with the justification for a template. While many links to nndb may be superfluous, on others they provide extra information that is unsuitable for direct inclusion here but is, nonetheless, useful to readers. In those latter cases, a template is useful in providing uniformity; the former kind will be added anyway, regardless of whether a template exists. ObfuscatePenguin 01:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, noting the previous nominations is encouraged so that details for and against the article can be reviewed by the voting/discussing parties, though you're right in that it doesn't serve the nominator any good to list them, but it's fairer to the article to list them. --lincalinca 02:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The previous TfDs discussed the matter about whether the template was linkspam, which isn't exactly related to the current discussion. --Farix (Talk) 03:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A reliable source for me.--Woop-Woop That's the sound of da Police 12:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree, a template is a mild endorsement of the site and nndb is not reliable (as per WP:RS) and in no cases I have ever seen on a page I watchlist does it add meaningfully to the article. I have over 13,000 pages (not 13,000 articles) on my watchlist. That said, nndb may be appropriate to link to in some articles despite not being a reliable source. Lincalinca states that nndb is similar to imdb and that imdb is broadly considered to be as reliable as Wikipedia. Note that neither Wikipedia nor imdb meet WP:RS. Anyway, I freely admit that my grounds for getting rid of the template is that I consider nndb to be generally inappropriate and always unreliable (as per WP:RS) and that the template mildly endorses the site. You may not consider this sufficient grounds for removal of the template, though, only grounds for removing that template from 99% of the articles it is currently used in. Or you may disagree on that point, too. --Yamla 15:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As with the identical situation with the IMDB and similar templates, a template standardizes the link format across various pages for which the links are going to appear on anyway, template or no template extant. This is not an issue with sourcing (where NNDB should not appear) but with external links sections. Quatloo 16:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So you are saying you wouldn't mind people removing nndb links as we consider it to be unverifiable (no refs) and unreliable? Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 17:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody should be removing external links on the bases of verifiability or reliability. Instead, you have to argue that the external links are either not relevant to the article or does not add any meaningful value. --Farix (Talk) 01:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I never said that -- nobody should be bulk adding or removing external links to anything based on agenda. If links are to be added or removed, they should be done so by existing editors of the articles in question. Quatloo 12:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The template is useful for linking (which is not an endorsement), and does not mean all NNDB information is reliable. It's another source/POV to make available to our readers, per WP:NPOV. Obviously, we would also link to other sources, and explain where they differ. Superm401 - Talk 19:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is an endoresement. An editor may see it in one article and think "oh, they have a template for this" and add it to other articles. WP:BLP#External_links says "External links in biographies of living persons must be of high quality and in full compliance with Wikipedia official policies and external links guidelines." I do not think NNDB qualifies. --Pixelface 19:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep unless the web site should be completely removed from all external links. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I do not think the template is helpful, noteworthy, or encyclopedic. Category:External link templates says "Generally, templates should only be made for links to sites that are...Extremely well-known and covering the subject better than Wikipedia does (e.g. IMDB)" and I don't think NNDB qualifies. Also, WP:EL says external links should be meritable, with accurate research. I think there's a tendency for editors to see templates in external links sections and then think that every similar article needs that template as well. So this template may be an endorsement to add NNDB links to every biographical article on Wikipedia. NNDB has over 27,000 profiles and I don't think that NNDB links need to be added to those 27,000 articles on Wikipedia. At WP:EL, in the Links normally to be avoided section, it lists: 1) Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article. 2) Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources for explanations of the terms "factually inaccurate material" or "unverifiable research". 4) Links mainly intended to promote a website. I have no idea if the information at NNDB is accurate, and without knowing that, I can't endorse 27,000 articles potentially linking to it. NNDB links to dailyrotten.com on the mainpage, so I'm a bit wary. NNDB has an Alexa rank of 7,243[1]. The Alexa profile lists Sites with registration info similar to nndb.com and it lists rotten.com, shockumentary.com, gapingmaw.com, ratemyboobies.com, and fcks.com. Soylent Communications runs shockumentary.com (which sells shock DVDs) and also nndb.com. Soylent Communications is a webhost as far as I know, but glancing at the sites it hosts also makes me wary. I don't want to judge a site based on what its webhost also hosts, but I'm not sure if Soylent Communications is the webhost or if they are the people who add the information to NNDB. The NNDB Wikipedia article says it is "produced by Soylent Communications." The profile for Marilyn Manson on NNDB may be useful if the information is accurate, but it also links to the Rotten Library page. I see you can submit information to NNDB. On film articles like Beetlejuice it contains a link to Amazon.com with a referrer tag of "namesdatabase-20." Other than that, NNDB contains no advertising as far as I can tell. I know that IMDB accepts submissions although they are moderated. I also know that IMDB links to Amazon.com (since Amazon acquired IMDB). I suppose I put more faith in IMDB because it's run by Amazon.com, which is a publicly traded company. There is a long discussion at Talk:NNDB about whether NNDB is acceptable as an external link. The NNDB profile for Laura Schlessinger is not one I think Wikipedia can recommend. The first sentence reads "On Laura Schlessinger's popular train wreck of a radio show, listeners can hear strangers' lives ruined by bad advice for three hours daily." Apparently Soylent Communications also hosts (or runs, I don't know) Pornopolis.com which states "This is the best way to support Rotten, The Rotten Library, Daily Rotten, and NNDB." I can understand the need for a template so external links will look consistent, but I don't think NNDB links "provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contains if it became a Featured article", I'm not sure where the information comes from, and I think the template can be seen as promotion of a website. NNDB appears to contain no advertisements, but it does link to Rotten.com, another Soylent Communications site. The Rotten.com article says Rotten.com launched NNDB in mid-2004 (although that sentence has no citation). I don't know if nndb.com urls should be blacklisted, but I think the template encourages spamming nndb.com urls across biographical articles and should be deleted. --Pixelface 06:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all of this is Straw man argument, and irrelevant to the discussion, e.g., "I don't think that NNDB links need to be added to those 27,000 articles." Nobody is proposing that, nor has anyone been bulk adding them. It should be noted, that Wikipedia was founded by Jimmy Wales, who paid for and ran the encyclopedia from the offices of his softcore porn site Bomis. Does that make you "wary"? Frankly, I have _less_ faith in sites run by large firms -- they must bow to political and shareholder pressures. The only question is, since NNDB links are going to be added to articles anyway, should they have a standard format. Quatloo 12:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Straw man? We're talking about the biographies of living persons. WP:BLP is a policy and says "Wikipedia articles can affect real people's lives. This gives us an ethical and legal responsibility. Biographical material must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality and avoiding original research, particularly if it is contentious." It also says "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles." It also says "An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. Biographies of living persons (BLP) must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy." WP:BLP#External_links says "External links in biographies of living persons must be of high quality and in full compliance with Wikipedia official policies and external links guidelines." I do not think NNDB qualifies as "high quality" or as a reliable source, which is evident by looking at the NNDB profile for Laura Schlessisnger. I really don't know why you're defending an external site full of unverifiable information. It appears to me that NNDB exists to promote Rotten.com. And I don't really care about the format. The template is superfluous. *((nndb name|id=427/000022361/|name=Laura Schlessisnger)) displays the same text as *[http://www.nndb.com/people/427/000022361/ Laura Schlessisnger] at the [[NNDB|Notable Names Database]]. The template just encourages editors to add NNDB links to all biographical articles, but biographies must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality and avoiding original research. I don't think external links are exempt from that. I don't trust IMDB biography or trivia pages either. Links to IMDB on a person's article are helpful for showing full filmographies. And I've never seen an entry for a person at IMDB with a film listing that would defame that person. --Pixelface 19:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Most of the comments in support are completely missing the boat here. Arguments that templates are not endorsements misses the fact that they are explicitly used as such by the people mass adding links to this site everywhere. The people who added it across multiple articles look to have a very clear WP:COI problem, going into outright crass spamming. When the link is removed from individual articles as not being appropriate, there's always the argument that is can't be inappropriate or else there wouldn;t be a template for it. As far as the actual site goes, it very, VERY clearly does not meet the rules on WP:EL for what is and is not appropriate, as the site is in no way a valuable encyclopedic reference and, most importantly, it fails to have anything of value that the Wikipedia articles in question should have themselves. All this is is another example of massive, coordinated self-promotion for a site that simply has no value to our users. Not only should the NND template be removed, but I think a blacklist is probably in order as well. DreamGuy 14:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think a blacklist might be in order, but the template should exist if the links are allowed. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A template is not an endorsement, or we'd delete ((MathWorld)). WikiProject Mathematics has reached consensus that it's not a reliable source, that it's frequently the owner's opinion unsupported by fact or other references, but that it's appropriate to link to as an external link. (I know, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason to keep a template or an article, but the WikiProject has explicitly non-endorsed the site, while agreeing that the template has a purpose.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has a strict policy about the biographies of persons. I can see how a template used in math articles could be dealt with differently than a template used in biographical articles. --Pixelface 19:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whether you choose to call it an endorsement or not, the end result is clearly an endorsement. And it seems to me that once we've determined that a site is not a reliable source we MUST delete the template, regardless of whatever odd decision was made with "MathWorld." NNDB should be added to the blacklist, and the template should be removed, and certainly we can do the latter evenif the former hasn;t happened yet. DreamGuy 19:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If the NNDB link doesn't have any use for a subject, don't put it on the Wiki page. The IMDb doesn't always give sources; that doesn't mean that it should be removed as a template. Irk_{Come in for a drink!} 15:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think IMDB bio pages are reliable sources and I don't think NNDB pages are reliable sources. And NNDB pages appear to contain more possibly defamatory information. --Pixelface 19:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it's just a convenience, not an endorsement. And, as has been said, external links don't have to lead to ideal, invariably reliable sources. I'm also skeptical of nominating the same template repeatedly with the same arguments until it gets deleted... though it has been a reasonable amount of time so I won't make a big fuss. — xDanielx ^T/_C 16:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We're talking about biographical articles about people on Wikipedia, so I think we should expect higher quality links than NNDB. --Pixelface 19:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True... but I think the regular WP:BLP guidelines work fine. If a dubious and potentially libellous (or just plain disrespectful) claim depends on a NNDB link for verification, then it may be appropriate to remove the claim, as exceptional claims require exceptional sources. I don't think editors are likely try to justify the credibility of NNDB with the existence of a template, so I think any good deletion would do is probably negligible. — xDanielx ^T/_C 00:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Category:External link templates and the fact the template existence has been used to endorse the links inclusion in articles. Templates encourage standardization, which is generally good, but they also encourage inclusion, which is only good when the content being included is high quality. Abuse of templates to lower article quality is problematic and should be discouraged. There is nothing to stop users adding the link without the template just like any other link if it is appropriate for the individual page (which this one rarely is). -- SiobhanHansa 17:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Since anybody can add a link to NNDB, the template should be kept. MonsterShouter 21:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, what???? 2005 23:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I note MonsterShouter like the other prominent defender of NNDB, User:Quatloo above also has an interest in Soylent Communications, the company that owns NNDB and its other website Rotten.com. They also have a common interest in Rands aka Michael Lopp, internet comic author and software engineering manager, author of Jerkcity. A user of that name was also very quick in following User:Quatloo in defending the NNDB template in the previous template discussion. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 11:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Um, what???? Note that MonsterShouter appears not to be a prominent "defender" of NNDB. For what it's worth, I have no previous contact with them, although I believe I removed one link to the site which seemed particularly inaccurate. The only justification that I can see for removing the template without banning the site is a comment in the category the template is placed in, which I believe to be contrary to Wikipedia guidelines. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sorry, but that account seems like a sockpuppet if you look at the contribs. He seems to have been monitoring Rotten.com for vandalism despite never editing that page and had an early interest in Jerkcity as Quatloo has. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 18:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm just a fan. MonsterShouter 19:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't see the contributions indicate he's a WP:SOCKPUPPET or WP:SPA. I've monitored a few pages for WP:VANDALISM without having made substantive edits, as they were related to vandalism on a page I was monitoring. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yet another garbage template used for spamming. 2005 23:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per SiobhanHansa. Whether or not this template means we "endorse" the link may be debatable, but its existence is clearly encouraging its addition. Since this link is rarely, if ever, appropriate, the need for standardization across articles is absent. -- Satori Son 14:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Super Duper Pooper Strong Delete - NNDB is never a reliable source, as much of its content is taken from Wikipedia, making it usually a circular reference. Serious verifiability problems with the content there. The site even disclaims the accuracy of its content. As an External Link, it rarely qualifies per WP:EL, as it almost never would have more information that a WP featured article would. Having a template is a defacto endorsement of the site, when what we should be doing is discouraging linking to NNDB. Nearly all the names on NNDB are living people, so WP:BLP issues abound. - Crockspot 16:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC) - updated Crockspot 20:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stongest Possible Delete: Per Pixelface and DreamGuy. The keep arguments amount to little more than WP:ILIKEIT, this template is inviting wanton linkspam abuse. Get rid of, salt, burn and sink to the bottom of the Southern Ocean. IvoShandor 20:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article for Dead pool says "The Rotten.com Dead Pool, the largest in the world, uses NNDB as its source of qualified celebrities, and as arbiter of their life status" (although that sentence has no citation). http://deadpool.rotten.com/about/ says "The Rotten Dead Pool was established in December 2003. Based on the Notable Names Database (www.nndb.com), players can make a list of ten people they think will die in the next year. The Rotten Dead Pool is brought to you by Rotten.com." It appears to me that NNDB was created by Rotten.com to support their dead pool. Picks in the dead pool are limited to people listed at NNDB. http://deadpool.rotten.com/rules.html says "To pick a celebrity, this person must be on our list and alive." It also says "If your choice is not listed here, try our Search Engine before submitting a name to staff." The hyperlink for the search engine is http://zombie.rotten.com/cgi-bin/search.cgi which shows a NNDB search box and the "submitting a name" hyperlink is http://zombie.rotten.com/cgi-bin/annotate.cgi?what=add which has a hyperlink "Click here to leave a message for Deadpool Staff" with the URL http://commentary.nndb.com/submit/feedback/ I think it should also be noted that NNDB.com says "This is a beta version of NNDB". Also, Soylent Communications and Rotten.com have the same PO Box in Mountain View, California[2][3] Wikipedia does not need to promote Rotten.com (or their dead pool) and I fail to see how NNDB (which was created for their dead pool AFAIK) qualifies as a high quality, reliable source in the biographical articles of people on Wikipedia. --Pixelface 23:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The content is solid and encyclopedic. I bet some of its content found the way into Wikipedia already. The site has also no intrusive advertisements (I didn't see any ads actually) or any other reason why Wikipedia should not refer to it. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 02:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "The content is solid and encyclopedic"- that would be why it says in the NNDB Keanu Reeves article, "Executive summary: Dude". The site is not solid and encyclopedic, it lists no sources for it's claims and is full of errors which the website owner does not correct. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 09:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This template exists to make thoughtless links easy. --Wetman 09:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The template serves no useful purpose whatsoever as it saves no time over typing out a link in the usual format. Besides this basic reason, I also agree with the concerns raised above about the reliability of the information, inappropriateness of the link per WP:EL in ALL cases where it could possibly be used, the implicit endorsement of an external website which encourages further link creation, as well as BLP. Zun aid ©® 11:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This has been through not one but two previous deletion attempts, see also: Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 April 13#Template:Nndb name and Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 January 13#Template:Nndb name for prior discussions on this topic. We have a number of templates like this one, all of which help present the information being presented in some kind of a uniform fashion, this is a good thing. I am not buying the strawman WP:BLP argument here, or that because it is hosted by an internet service provider who hosts other sites, we must not link to this one. That type of logic is no better than the Chewbacca defense, and would be the equivalent of discriminating against all sites hosted by Dreamhost because we don't agree with one of them. Also, I tend to find information at NNDB much more accurate and reliable than IMDb. If worse came to worse, I would suggest deleting the IMDb template and keeping this one. RFerreira 00:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So if it is "a good thing" and we have a number of templates like this one, why not make templates for all sites having more than one external link in the Wikipedia? We need to have some logic in the encyclopedia, not this sort of random, unthinking stuff. External link templates are not "a good thing" by nature. They likely all should all be eliminated, but certainly no argument at all has been presented why a site that fails WP:EL and WP:BLP should have one. "I like it" and "it sucks less than something else" are not good arguments. 2005 00:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Possibly because you and I disagree on this point; I honestly do not believe that they fail. You are entitled to your opinion, and I respect that. RFerreira 00:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - But still you present no argument why this site should have a template when tens of thousands don't. There is no logical reason for the template to exist, and many that it should not. If some NNDB page merits linking somewhere, then it can be linked. If anything, templates like this should exist when there is overwhelming support for them, which obviously this does not have. The idea that any weak, medicore-ish website can create a template to more easily spam links and then not have it deleted because it can marshal a six or eight defenders is very bizarre, but it is clear that is what spammers should do now if this template (and any others like it) can stay in place despite it not having overwhelming support. There should need to be a consensus to CREATE external link templates, not a consensus to delete these easily abused things. 2005 01:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - If we ever come to such a state that we need a consensus to CREATE templates -- or anything else, for that matter -- do let me know. RFerreira 03:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We've already been through this twice before, as has been pointed out. Xihr 04:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I note, like User:Quatloo above you are another prominent defender of NNDB [4], who strangely also seems particularly interested in Jerkcity [5], [6], [7], [8]. From the rotten.com article, "In 2000, the Rotten staff started up The Gaping Maw, an editorial/commentary archive. Most of the articles were written by cartoonist Tristan Farnon under the alias "Spigot" (Jerkcity, Leisure Town) and other associates, containing news satire and general rumination on modern society."". Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 11:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - One edit in my entire history does not a "prominent defender" make. Sorry, but that's really poor reasoning. Xihr 20:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's not just one edit, it's the edits to Jerkcity which seems to be a common denominator in a lot of the people that have come to this tfd discussion. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 21:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I've also edited the articles for both Quake II and Doom 3. Does that mean I work for id Software? Of course not -- but this is precisely the same flawed argument you're trying to make here. Xihr 22:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        It's not flawed. Why have a lot of people involved in the Jerkcity article all found out about this tfd? Were you all watching the nndb template? Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 22:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Why would people who watch the articles for subjects related to Quake also tend to watch articles for subjects related to Doom? Maybe the answer to that question is the same as the answer to your question. Xihr 22:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        So you normally watch templates that you didn't create or edit do you? Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 22:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Sailed right over your head, did it? Xihr 22:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The claims of non-reliability are unfounded. No reference is infallible; we even have a Wikipedia:Errors in the Encyclopædia Britannica that have been corrected in Wikipedia section on Wikipedia. --Sodium N4 07:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The claims of unreliability are well founded- the website does not correct errors and it does not give sources for its information. And you are comparing NNDB to Britannica?! I note also you have a strong interest in the computer art scene that runs these websites. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 11:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RS: the encyclopedia should only use reliable sources, this is clearly not one. See the entry for Britney Spears for example: "the most successful of their numerous experiments, Britney Spears was genetically engineered by the Disney Corporation to bring western culture to its knees." (One of many such joke entries.) DrKiernan 12:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The delete arguments here amount to little more than WP:IDONTLIKEIT and make many false and potentially problematic claims about a fairly reliable source for information. If you'd like to talk about a highly-visible group that doesn't often cite sources, might I suggest The Associated Press? Myles Long 15:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "many false and potentially problematic claims about a fairly reliable source for information"- do you want to elaborate on that please? This site was created by purveyors of mock/shock sites as a tie-in for their "dead pool". It contains entries such as "the most successful of their numerous experiments, Britney Spears was genetically engineered by the Disney Corporation to bring western culture to its knees". Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 17:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I note also that you are member of the Cult of the Dead Cow which is linked to Soylent Communications, the company that runs NNDB, as per your edit here and your further interest here and here. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 17:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I suppose that if you had edited such an article on a prior date you too would be "linked" to the subject of the article? Don't be so silly. Yamaguchi先生 19:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Sorry, but that person had a knowledge of a person's connection to that website which is absolutely not mainstream knowledge which suggests they are involved with it. And please don't go around calling people silly when they are trying to investigate COIs. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 21:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        You are making unsubstantiated claims about contributors to Wikipedia, which I find ironic given your repeated citations of WP:BLP. Please stop, as this violates our code of conduct. Yamaguchi先生 22:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        They are not unsubstantiated. There is evidence that people that have come to this debate are in some way connected to NNDB and it's sister websites as they have knowledge of them which is in no way common knowledge. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 22:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        There's no evidence that I have anything to do with NNDB or any Soylent Communications site, because I don't. Occasionally, I read them, but that's it. I see no evidence that I've made any claims about them that aren't public knowledge. All I did in the diffs you referenced was link to associated articles and alter a statement that's easily found on many public sources. By your logic, I must also be somehow associated with Toadies (I'm not) due to edits like this one [9]. --Myles Long 23:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Anything on NNDB that has a reliable source should be in our articles, citing that source; anything on NNDB that lacks a reliable source should not be included, acknowledged or endorsed. NNDB biographies are typically less complete than ours, I don't see that this fulfils the WP:EL ideal of providing reliable information over and above what is appropriate for a general encyclopaedia. What it does provide, though, is a way to spread memes from a source with (even) less rigorous fact checking than our own rather lax enforcement of WP:BLP. Guy (Help!) 18:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I reviewed many of the incoming NNDB links and they all appear to have been added organically by trusted editors, and there is a valid claim to formatting the links in a uniform fashion. I am also troubled by the many unsubstantiated claims and assumptions of bad faith put forth by Gustav von Humpelschmumpel here, some of which border upon personal attacks. Please try to be polite when interacting with other editors. Yamaguchi先生 19:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The template encourages people to think that nndb is a reliable source- that is the whole point of this debate. And there is evidence that various people connected to this website are stacking this discussion to ensure the template is kept- and when you look at the nature of that website it in no way encourages the assumption of good faith. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 21:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 02:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:AcademyAwardsproj

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 04:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant wikiproject banner. Is now part of the awards task force at Wikipedia:WikiProject Films. I propose it is deleted. — RWardy 19:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Since it no longer has its own project, there is no point in this template. TheBlazikenMaster 20:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Is there any particular reason why this shouldn't be redirected? --Farix (Talk) 20:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirected to where? TheBlazikenMaster 21:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Since the Project was subsumed into the WP:FILMS, most likely there... SkierRMH 21:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, but... The project has been changed into a task force within WP Films, so in order for a redirect to be effective, it would have to include the task force parameter as well. Furthermore, virtually all transclusions and links to the template have been changed or deleted now, so there is little point to bothering. Girolamo Savonarola 22:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Crossname redirects make no sense. Template redirect to a Wikipedia site makes less sense than mainspace redirect to a Wikipedia site. I think that's what you're planning to do. TheBlazikenMaster 09:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Since it has been deprecated totally at this point, no need to redirect, so deletion would be the answer at this point. SkierRMH 16:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Link GA

The result of the debate was speedy delete under G4. Carlosguitar 06:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably a test page - I cant CSD templates though!. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 16:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a test page. This template needs to be create ! Hourslimit 16:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the user is still editing the page. On the other hand, its purpose seems to be to mark interwiki links to "good articles" (correct me if I am wrong) - wasn't a similar template deleted previously? - Mike Rosoft 16:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Recreation of a deleted template that was deleted through a previous TfD earlier this month. --Farix (Talk) 20:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G4. SkierRMH 21:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as nonsensical and unencyclopedic. Perhaps the user who created the template (twice now) should be notified in order to cease creating it? I suspect with another deletion s/he will simply create it again. Can a template be protected from creation? --lincalinca 01:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note, nominated for deletion per G4 - asking closing admin to "salt" as well.SkierRMH 20:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mike Gravel

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The template is overkill. Only three of the entries are intrinsically linked to Gravel (Political positions of Mike Gravel, Mike Gravel presidential campaign, 2008 and National Initiative), and these are amply linked to from his page or his campaign's page. The rest is just filler and without it, we are left with a very thin template that serves no real useful navigational purpose. I feel similarly about Template:Ron Paul and Template:Dennis Kucinich, should anyone wish to nominate those. — Biruitorul 06:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Biruitorul. There's only three links that are appropriate for this and that's way too few. Metros 00:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above; serves no useful navigation purpose. szyslak 09:50, 4 November 2007 (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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:East Rail

The result of the debate was speedy delete under G4. Carlosguitar 06:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Previously deleted. On inline template that serves no purpose except to link to a page with coloured font formatting. Basically replaces a Wikilink. Ohconfucius 02:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G4. - Che Nuevara 17:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per ((db-g4)) SkierRMH 21:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've actually just written the essay about this very topic at WP:LAZY. There's no need when there's so little involved. --lincalinca 01:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there are about 13 other similar templates listed on Wikipedia:MTR templates. Shouldn't these all be grouped together into one discussion? Slambo (Speak) 10:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:West Rail

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 04:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On inline template that serves no purpose except to link to a page with coloured font formatting. Basically replaces a Wikilink. Ohconfucius 02:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Easily replacable with some colour tweaking in the tables where it's used. SkierRMH 21:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've actually just written the essay about this very topic at WP:LAZY. There's no need when there's so little involved. --lincalinca 01:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:West Rail Line

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 04:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On inline template that serves no purpose except to link to a page as a redirect. Basically replaces a Wikilink. Ohconfucius 02:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Easily replacable with some colour tweaking in the tables where it's used. SkierRMH 21:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've actually just written the essay about this very topic at WP:LAZY. There's no need when there's so little involved. --lincalinca 01:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:KCR Light Rail

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 04:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On inline template that serves no purpose except to link to a page with coloured font formatting. Basically replaces a Wikilink. Ohconfucius 02:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Easily replacable with some colour tweaking in the tables where it's used. SkierRMH 21:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've actually just written the essay about this very topic at WP:LAZY. There's no need when there's so little involved. --lincalinca 01:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]