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 discussion was Delete. Ruslik_Zero 08:28, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Vincent Bueno (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not everything needs a navbox, there are not enough links in the navbox to actually help with navigation — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 21:51, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not enough for navigation. Frietjes (talk) 20:30, 10 May 2011 (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.

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 discussion was no consensus to delete, but some consensus to cut the redlinks. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:17, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Corruption in India (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

There is an inherent POV to this template. There shouldn't be enough articles to justify this template. But, there are, because the same user has been creating numerous POV forks to disparage India. For example, having four or five articles on "black money" is plainly excessive. This template just encourages more problematic articles. Rob (talk) 19:06, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now: Unlike the recently deleted scandals category, I actually believe there may be enough articles here to make this template useful. At the moment, it's unclear exactly how many of the corruption articles will be around in a few weeks. I do believe we need more than just one Corruption in India article, as long as we can substantiate the claims (and my initial feeling is that we will be able to). The template certainly needs to be trimmed: as articles are deleted, we should remove them from the template, since, as you Thivierr points out, many of those articles should never exist. But until we know for certain that most of these are going to disappear, I think it's too soon to delete the template. If, at some point in the future, there aren't enough articles to make a useful template, we can revisit the issue. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:51, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: Corruption in India is a very important and burning topic. This can be verified by 2011 Indian anti-corruption movement. It may not be that important in other nations form where the other users are viewing corruption related Indian topics. The template is very much needed to group all corruption related topics of India. Templates help users find the related topics easily, changes in this template are welcome, but the template is needed. Thanks Mahesh Kumar Yadav (talk) 07:29, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now per Qwyrxian, we need to deal with the articles first, before we go around delete the article, we need to figure out how to handle the content which currently POV. Obviously, as Mahesh points out, the subject is of major concern for our Indian readership, we just need to make sure that the articles meet WP:V and WP:NPOV which means keeping the template to direct more people to the various articles so that people see the discussions, Sadads (talk) 09:38, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Clearly non-neutral POV pushing, here we've to first consider the intentions behind making these articles and template. Like, what's the need of separate article — Police use of torture in India, which could be easily and "reasonably" merged to Law enforcement in India or to Indian Police Service. Similarly an article — Media bias in India could be a part of Media of India or Print media in India. Whistleblower protection act (India) and Whistleblower protection in India can be merged together. Effects of corruption in India must be a part of Corruption in India, with condition that it fulfills the WP:V, unless should be deleted. This template is not for grouping all the corruption related topics of India, but to vilify India. Also this user is making no good contributions on Wikipedia, for example within a single day he/she has made 401 articles and all are about Indian villages with single line in whole page — "________ is a village of Panchkula district" in state of Haryana, India" (as much as I checked). I'm shocked after this as there are more than one million villages in India and in this way we'd need a seperate encyclopedia for Indian villages. I know this is not a place to discuss this all about, but I guess this fact was necessary to explain the working tendency of this user on Wikipedia. — Bill william compton^Talk 13:13, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Oversized, underfunctional, and a bit of a POV push. Carrite (talk) 05:47, 12 May 2011 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 17:14, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now - but it needs close monitoring as it may soon become pretty irrelevant. I agree that there is some POV pushing going on, but that could be eliminated with the involvement of other editors and the cutting down in the number of articles. - Sitush (talk) 16:09, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - My primary objections are to the large number of redlinks and to the massive size of the box. It needs to be pared back substantially. Carrite (talk) 17:14, 12 May 2011 (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.

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 discussion was Delete. Ruslik_Zero 08:58, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Women at the Olympics and Paralympics (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Links on the template are a cherry picked selection with unclear criteria for inclusion, netball for example is not even an Olympic sport but is misleading listed as such. Basement12 (T.C) 00:07, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Not only do I believe that Wikipedia should have a connected series of articles on women's sports and participation as they relate to the Olympics and Paralympics, but the nom hasn't identified a single problem here that can't be fixed by editing. Deletion is not a clean-up process. And on the point of content: Navboxes are the equivalent of ==See also==. A sport need not be a specially anointed, legally defined, awarding-medals-every-four-years "Olympic sport" in the narrowest possible sense for it to be an article that might interest readers who are in the related articles, and Netball (the one that seems to bother the nom) is certainly on the list of officially recognized Olympic sports. There are dozens of Olympic-recognized sports that are not on the schedule for the Olympic Games. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:47, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unless all sports, events, medallists, teams and individual athletes are to be included, and I don't believe the thousands of links that would include is very practical,on the template then these categories need removing. That leaves one article and three red links (at least two of which probably won't ever exist as the information will be covered by a single article) on the template so it serves little purpose. Even if the red links do get created a see also section would be a better way of listing them - Basement12 (T.C) 03:50, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are only a few dozen officially Olympic-recognized women's sports and even fewer events, so the claim of "thousands" is silly. I'd remove the individual athletes, but that's a clean-up issue, and deletion is not clean up. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:10, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I'm also a supporter and contributor of women's related sports articles on Wikipedia, but this fact doesn't cloud my thinking and I can't ignore that this template's entries are highly questionable. The title "Women at the Olympics and Paralympics" is misleading as comparison to listed entries. I don't understand why on earth Synchronized swimming (which is an Olympic sport since 1984 and solely a women's event) is not listed but Netball — neither an Olympic sport nor a recognized one is in the list especially with Softball which was the part of four consecutive Olympics and still an officially Olympic recognized sport. Just having name on Wikipedia's article (Olympic sports) doesn't make Netball an Olympic recognized sport. There is no source which could prove that Netball is in the official "list of recognized sports" by IOC. IOC only recognizes IFNA not a Netball itself and recognition of IFNA and Netball as Olympic recognized sport are two completely different terms, for instance, Cricket was granted an "Olympic Recognized" status in 2007, but the ICC (international governing body of cricket) got IOC recognition last year only, means it's actually an Olympic recognized sport and most importantly we've sources for this claim, but what about Netball? --Bill william compton^Talk 03:13, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as I do not think this template is salvagable:
  1. The "Olympic Movement" section has three redlinks out of four items, and I do not see how they could be completed. What would be the difference between a future Women and the Olympic Movement article and the existing Women's sport at the Olympics article?
  2. The "Sports" section only lists two sports, of which one isn't even an Olympic sport, and the other has been discontinued! Of the 54 current Olympic sporting disciplines (for which we have "Sport at the Olympics" articles), only four (boxing, Greco-Roman wrestling, ski jumping, and Nordic combined) do not have women's participation, and two (rhythmic gymnastics and synchronized swimming) are exclusive to women. Why choose only softball and netball for this template? But adding everything else to this navbox isn't a solution; it would simply make this essentially redundant with ((Olympic sports)).
  3. Why are nine particular events picked for the "Events" section, out of thousands of available articles for women's events? Clearly this section is impractical to complete.
  4. Same comment for the "Medalists" section as for the "Sports" section. Completing this to include all medalist articles that include women would have significant overlap with the existing ((Olympic medalists)) navbox.
  5. As above, why are only a small number of articles hand-picked for the "Teams and Players" section?
  6. Lastly, and perhaps the most confusing, is that there are about 35,000 women who have competed in the Olympic Games (and thousands? more in the Paralympic Games), yet only a single person is listed in the "Individual Olympians and Paralympians" section! This navbox section could clearly never be completed.

  Therefore, delete. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 16:22, 9 May 2011 (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.