Template:Irrel – Endorsed by letter, overturned in spirit. There's some feeling here that the template is needed but that "irrelevant" isn't quite the right word, and that it, as the closer of the TfD says, suggests a subjective judgment rather than an objective fact. Might I suggest (editorially, not ex officio) "Off-topic" as, indeed, the best way to put it, in keeping with other templates and the section to which the template links? I'll undelete (the actual template, not the redirect), and this could be run through TfD again as some suggest, but I think this can be solved editorially just by identifying the right word and editing (and moving) the template. – Chick Bowen 02:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Template:Irrel(edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)(restore | cache) (TfD)
The template added an inline subscript Irrelevant? to the statement. The consensus for its deletion was very weak, and I find myself in need of this template in other articles (just as before it was created). The goal of this inline template is to point out statements that may violate WP:UNDUE by being irrelevant to the main subject (the explanation of the template read: The material in the vicinity of this tag may contain the information irrelevant to the article's main topic); it is an inline version of {{Off-topic}} and offers similar but singificantly different focus to {{dubious}} or {{POV-statement}}. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Closer's comment The consensus was that the template added an inline opinion of the one placing it about the relevance of a sentence, rather then an objective observation based on policy or guidelines, like {{dubious}} or {{POV-statement}}. Relevancy however is strictly content-based, and content should only be discussed on the talk page, not in-line in the article. — Edokter • Talk • 01:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can I ask why this DRV is being placed only now for a deletion discussion from nearly five months ago? Stifle (talk) 11:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
possibly because there are so many questionable deletions in Wikipedia that it is taking a longtime to examine them all? (smile) DGG (talk) 16:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see. I'm neutral on this DRV because the debate could reasonably have been closed either way, and while I don't think I'd use the template, it could be relevant. Stifle (talk) 13:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relist The question of how to deal with possibly irrelevant content is one that has never really been properly addressed, for we have o firm criteria. Though this template wouldn't solve that problem, it would at least specify it. I am not sure it might not end up being used to exacerbate politically charged debates, but it warrants a discussion with more attention paid to it. DGG (talk) 15:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The history of this template is located at {{Irrelevant (inline)}}, to which {{irrel}} redirects. Without commenting on the TfD, I'd like to suggest changing the text and name of the template (if is recreated) from "irrelevant?" to "relevant?". –Black Falcon(Talk) 19:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Everything on Tony Piccalo's page is correct and it was deleted for no reason. 20:58, 19 August 2008 User:Manbearpig321
If I undeleted it and AfD'ed it, the verdict would almost certainly be "Non-notable school teacher" or similar. Someone else db-tagged it as NN: I merely obeyed him and deleted it. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion The article was deleted as failing to assert significance under criterion WP:CSD#A7. An article may be deleted speedily if it does not "give a reasonable indication of why it might be notable." Having been employed as a high school football coach for four years is not an indication of importance or significance. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 23:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion per Moonriddengirl. I have reviewed the article and didn't see anything that would indicate he would qualify as notable under WP:ATHLETE. --Metropolitan90(talk) 04:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse speedy-deletion. I'm generally skeptical of A7 deletions but this is one of the best examples of appropriate use that I've seen in a long time. Rossami(talk) 19:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure per default, because no argument is made that a speedy deletion was done outside of the criteria established for such deletions, or that significant new information has come to light since a deletion and the information in the deleted article would be useful to write a new article (see Wikipedia:Deletion review#Principal purpose — challenging deletion debates, above). Sandstein 15:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Clear A7. Football coach at a high school with an undistinguished record there and no information about any possible previous notable career.DGG (talk) 15:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Contesting prod. I have sources which validate Banks's presence as a key musician in Detroit techno. Chubbles (talk) 15:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
SDF-4 Izumo – Automatically restored as contested PROD. – Stifle (talk) 08:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
References were being discussed and added to address the article's shortcomings 1-54-24 (talk) 07:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Alchemy business solutions – Blatant spam, doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell. Deletion endorsed. – ˉˉanetode╦╩ 10:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Article has been deleted by three admins as G11 (Blatant advertising). All appear to be correct. Endorse deletion. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Being true doesn't mean it's notable. Write a draft up showing notability and not advertising the company, and then maybe we can work towards inclusion. --UsaSatsui (talk) 04:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, was previously created, speedily deleted, and the deletion endorsed at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 July 26. The version which was created and deleted today is virtually identical to the version deleted in July. --Stormie (talk) 05:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, clear advert and reposted several times with no attempt to deal with why the article had been deleted. Stifle (talk) 08:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion blatant advertising. Hut 8.5 10:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Article has been in place now for at least a couple of years, and was only just recently prodded and deleted. To the best of my knowledge, no editors were notified. I would vote for it to be undeleted, but at the very least, to be restored and redirected to The X-Files so another editor could try adding real world information to it at a later point without having to restore the whole thing from scratch. CyberGhostface (talk) 00:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Restore. Contested prod, all you need to do is ask. I suggest going to the deleting admin first next time. --UsaSatsui (talk) 04:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
