Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 December 10

< December 9	December 11 >

December 10[edit]

Template:Transfermarkt[edit]

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) 16:41, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Transfermarkt is not considered a reliable source for player profiles, so this template should be deleted as it's not required. JMHamo (talk) 20:31, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 20:36, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This template was nominated just in July; what has changed since then warranting another TfD discussion or was the nom either unaware of the prior discussion or just didn't bother to remind the community here (very bad form in either respect)? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:37, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated again for further debate as the last TfD was no consensus. JMHamo (talk) 20:39, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per my reasoning at the previous discussion. Following the previous discussion, I took the matter to WP:ELN as I was advised, and promptly received no replies at all to the matter. This is not a reliable source and having this template merely encourages the proliferation of a website which is simply not up to Wikipedia's standards. Giant Snowman 20:47, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. The existence of this template encourages the use of an unreliable source, something that should be discouraged. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:12, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete, replacing any use as a reference with a {{cn}} tag, and please do the same with the possibly untemplated versions found here and here. Frietjes (talk) 18:17, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – per previous discussion, not reliable to be used for inline citations, does not provide a unique resource to be seriously considered as an external link template only. C 679 20:23, 16 December 2013 (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.