Template:Partisan sources
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. Izno (talk) 19:17, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's a contradiction with the RS guideline. Per WP:PARTISAN, "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective" and "sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject". Potential issues may be tagged with Template:Unbalanced, Template:POV statement and the like. Brandmeistertalk 12:33, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: While I agree with the nomination reason, this may help find articles that rely heavily enough on partisan sources to the point where the content of the article could potentially tread off of NPOV and should be checked by another editor. Leaning between remove and keep here. Aidan9382 (talk) 21:51, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:23, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: The contradiction with the RS guideline seems clear enough. If articles have NPOV issues that's a different problem. Extua (talk) 21:22, 30 June 2022 (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:Provincial ministries of Pakistan
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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 relisted on 2022 July 3. Izno (talk) 19:17, 3 July 2022 (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).
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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 relisted on 2022 July 3. Izno (talk) 19:17, 3 July 2022 (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:Warner Christmas films
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. Izno (talk) 08:41, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitrary grouping of films, based on two intersecting characteristics. Christmas films released by Warner Bros. are not commonly considered as a group Trivialist (talk) 08:10, 25 June 2022 (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:METROKIEV type
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. Izno (talk) 08:41, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unused rail type template. Gonnym (talk) 07:01, 25 June 2022 (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:Thessaly color
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. Page authors agreed with delete. WOSlinker (talk) 07:54, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unused Greece rail color templates. Gonnym (talk) 06:58, 25 June 2022 (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:Infobox Amandawe Mission
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. Izno (talk) 08:42, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not a working template or one that is needed at Draft:Amandawe Mission. Gonnym (talk) 06:54, 25 June 2022 (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:3 strongest tornadoes of 2021
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:14, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Templates of this manner have not been created in the past and are not especially useful since the same information already exists at Tornadoes of 2021. Also, “strongest tornadoes” is objective and could mean different things than just rating or highest estimated wind speeds. This template is redundant and should be deleted. United States Man (talk) 01:02, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Drafity and Fix — This topic itself isn’t notable, but it can be draftified and changed into a EF4s of 2021 template to use as a navigational template. Elijahandskip (talk) 01:19, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Like the idea, but it should not be used for tornadoes in one year. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 01:24, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. There's probably a reasonable template this direction, but that template is solely links and not any of the other stuff, and doesn't have an arbitrary cutoff like this one. --Izno (talk) 08:42, 2 July 2022 (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).
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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 no consensus. The contents has been wrapped in "main other" after the discussion was started. Please feel free to start a new discussion if you still feel it should be deleted. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:12, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's appropriate to be directing users into wiki-space from article space in the general case, and I don't see sufficient need for this. Outside the mainspace, I think linking to the glossary itself directly suffices in lieu of this template. In general, I would support full deletion. Izno (talk) 17:48, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:43, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Agreed; it should not; meant strictly for Talk or other non-mainspace pages. I’ll add a ((main other)) when I’m back in civilized wifi-land. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 16:57, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:37, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, this change has been made now, and generates a red error message if used from mainspace. (Or, it could be changed to just generate nothing, if used from mainspace, if that's better?) Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 20:09, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:39, 25 June 2022 (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).