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, it appears more articles are being created. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:56, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Delta Sigma Theta International Presidents (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Delete. Only four actual links. The rest of the entries have no articles. If deleted the contents need listifying in Delta Sigma Theta. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:52, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Link to CFD nomination of associated category: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_May_3#Category:Delta_Sigma_Theta_presidents  Frank  |  talk  11:27, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The fact that only a handful of the presidents of this sorority have articles does not mean it should not have a template; there is no WP:DEADLINE.  Frank  |  talk  11:27, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I've added links for two more existing articles: Helen Elsie Austin and Frankie Muse Freeman.  Frank  |  talk  11:49, 8 May 2012 (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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:59, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CensoredLink (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A catch-all disclaimer written as a second attempt to make a point over recent UK legislation blocking The Pirate Bay (the first being simply deleting any link to that site's domain). This is impractical, given our global reach: we cannot verify that a given website is accessible to every one of our readers, and to be honest readers are vastly more likely to be unable to follow links because the destination host is blocked by their organisational firewalls than because of governmental interference. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:40, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Nobody Ent 14:52, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above template was not made to make a point, rather it creation was a pragamatic response to the problem of links that are only apparently dead-links because of external filtering. Rather than using ((dead-link)) which would be inaccurate, this template informs users and contributors as to why a link might not give the expected source when clicked. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:56, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As everything after my first sentence states, this is not likely to be practical when applied in the general case. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:28, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes -- "censored" is a function of where the browser is, not where the server referenced by the link is. See Internet censorship by country Nobody Ent 19:36, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. WP:NDA applies here, but in general, I just don't see the point. Are we going to add this to every link blocked by the Great Firewall of China? Or is this just a response to the Pirate Bay in the UK issue? Resolute 00:27, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. To be blunt: servers are in the US, if the UK govt get pissed, they can either a) block Wikipedia and watch their political lives flush down the drain, or b) suck it. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:56, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep we should be clear, otherwise links will be tagged as dead links. We should even be more explicit for our own purposes so that we know which countries. And for readers we should be more general and say "blocked from some jurisdictions" rather than "Censored for legal reasons". It is an important principle that as much censorship (justified or not) should be clearly labelled as such. Many jurisdictions are trying to "black hole" parts of the Internet, Wikipedia should not be a vehicle for denying that these sites exist, even unintentionally. Rich Farmbrough, 03:33, 4 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]
  
  • So we are to soapbox about them? Bear in mind that Wikipedia has its own blacklist which is quite considerably more far-reaching than the UK government's. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:49, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not at all, I am discussing the practicalities of knowledge dissemination. I thought I was clearly saying that we should not have a PoV over jurisdictions' censorship, merely report that it exists. Rich Farmbrough, 14:06, 4 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]
      
  • How could we possibly know which links are censored from anywhere. Keep in mind, for example, US public school systems are all required to have internet filtering software installed, but it is administered on a local level. Nobody Ent 10:15, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good point. Maybe we need a different mechanism to avoid incorrect dead-link tagging. Rich Farmbrough, 14:07, 4 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]
      
• Comment. This template could be used for a good purpose, namely, to tag links which are censored so readers know about which countries they are inaccessible in. It would work a lot better if it required parameters to mark which countries, and placed the article into some category like Category:Articles with sources censored in UK. We could use this productively to track censorship and its effect on people honestly and innocently looking up Wikipedia content. The recent confrontationalism over this (indeed, over some out and out removals of links simply because the UK interferes with them) has distracted us. Wnt (talk) 19:02, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then I propose that we update ((deadlink)) with additional parameters (a defacto merge). mabdul 12:22, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • I've changed it to include a reason param, making it possible to be more specfic, like site blocked for containing things like explicit content, or extreme political views. Can someone give me a link to a policy page which I can refer people to?Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:27, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. mabdul 12:22, 7 May 2012 (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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:45, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:AcropolisCup (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only two bluelinks, even the parent article is redlink. Pointless to have a navbox that only navigates between two articles. Jenks24 (talk) 12:17, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, can be handled by a see also until articles are created (if they are ever created). Frietjes (talk) 16:37, 4 May 2012 (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.