Forum:TC:Template:PotentialVanity

Forums > Trash compactor archive > TC:Template:PotentialVanity

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was keep. Toprawa and Ralltiir 02:51, September 27, 2009 (UTC)

Template:PotentialVanity ([[Talk:Template:PotentialVanity|talk]] - history - links - logs)

I don't think we need this. It was once copied from wikipedia, and I think its time has come. If there's a vanity page, then we either delete it or move it to someone's userpage. I've never seen that we tagged it with this template. The template is currently used on one userpage, but I don't think that we should keep things because one userpage uses it. We can just substitute the template there, so that the userpage still looks the same. Pranay Sobusk ~ Talk 20:28, September 12, 2009 (UTC)

Delete

Pranay Sobusk ~ Talk 20:28, September 12, 2009 (UTC)
Unnecessary. Grunny (Talk) 01:52, September 13, 2009 (UTC)
CC7567 (talk) 03:18, September 13, 2009 (UTC)
—Master Jonathan(Jedi Council Chambers) 03:31, September 13, 2009 (UTC)
  1. Judging by the keep votes, this wouldn't be used for anything {{Notability}} and {{delete}} wouldn't. —Silly Dan (talk) 18:22, September 13, 2009 (UTC)
  2. Per Silly Dan. jSarek 08:26, September 16, 2009 (UTC)
  3. Per Dan. This is basically a Wikipedia holdover, and we just don't have their problems with people trying to create articles about themselves or things they're involved with. Any problems we do have in that area either fall under the notability or fanon headings, and we have nice specific templates for those. Havac 03:42, September 21, 2009 (UTC)

Keep

  1. I like it too much and would love to apply it to some of our fan organization pages. It's been used before otherwise. There's no real reason to delete this. Graestan(Talk) 03:33, September 13, 2009 (UTC)
  2. Per Grae. IFYLOFD (You will pay the price for your lack of vision!) 03:44, September 13, 2009 (UTC)
  3. JangFett Talk 04:45, September 13, 2009 (UTC)
  4. Keep and spam the living crap out of fansite pages with it. -- Darth Culator (Talk) 04:49, September 13, 2009 (UTC)
    • QAPLAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!! Graestan(Talk) 13:05, September 13, 2009 (UTC)
  5. If anything this TC will raise awareness of its existence and hopefully it will be used more. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 11:43, September 13, 2009 (UTC)
  6. Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research (Comlink) 12:55, September 13, 2009 (UTC)
  7. As long as we put it to use. Grunny (Talk) 13:07, September 13, 2009 (UTC)
  8. Jonjedigrandmaster (Jedi Beacon) 16:02, September 13, 2009 (UTC)
  9. Entirely per Culator. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 16:52, September 16, 2009 (UTC)
  10. Per Grae and Culator's reasoning. CC7567 (talk) 19:50, September 17, 2009 (UTC)
  11. Toprawa and Ralltiir 17:34, September 19, 2009 (UTC)
  12. I admit I nominated it once myself, but I like Culator's reasoning. Pranay Sobusk ~ Talk 09:15, September 20, 2009 (UTC)
  13. Per Grunny. If it remains unused, I reserve the right to CSD it eventually. MauserComlink 11:34, September 20, 2009 (UTC)
  14. I still don't see where it would be used for something that {{Notability}} or {{Delete}} wouldn't handle better, but if everyone thinks it can be put to use, then keep it. Per Mauser on his CSD clause, though. —Master Jonathan(Jedi Council Chambers) 23:46, September 21, 2009 (UTC)
  15. JMAS Hey, it's me! 01:04, September 22, 2009 (UTC)