Wikipedia talk:Speedy deletion

Back to WP:ESSAY. Admins not ignoring rules

Template:Formerly

If we're not going to have a CSD for essays, and we're not going to have admins with the guts to use WP:IAR for shit articles like THE IMPORTANCE OF EDUCATION, then the whole encyclopedia is a joke. You're really going to let that shit sit out there for more than 20 minutes? I'm sorry, but this article is a fucking joke and there's no reason for it to exist. Period. — Timneu22 · talk 10:47, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Chill! Abusing admins (however much they may deserve it in your eyes) is seldom a good way to get them to do something for you. And anyway JHunterJ A10'd it. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Again, there is extreme inconsistency around deleting utter trash. By keeping this article around, Wikipedia loses credibility. Maybe A10 should be the rule for essays, then. I'll try that. Something has to stick, doesn't it? — Timneu22 · talk 12:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there is inconsistency. The underlying issue is that there are several different opinions on which articles should be summarily deleted, and different admins have different practices.

I looked at the deleted text of the article in question, and any admin could have deleted it perfectly well under the "patent nonsense" criterion (G1) or just deleted it will a message like "not an article". That happens all the time.

On the other hand, whenever you add a CSD tag, there is always a possibility that the tag will be removed. There is no way to force someone else to summarily delete an article.

In this case, the article is deleted now, anyway. In practice, this sort of article does get deleted, it's just a matter of luck which process is used to do the deletion. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

But I didn't use CSD, I used {{delete}} with a reason that any admin should realized meant "not an article", which it wasn't. So why the inconsistency here? Can't any admin see that it wasn't an article? — Timneu22 · talk 13:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure everyone could see the article was bad. People disagree over the best way to deal with those: some people favor deleting on sight, some people favor PROD. That disagreement has been discussed to death and is unlikely to be solved. But in the end everyone agrees that the articles need to be deleted (or fixed, but that was not relevant to this article). — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Let me explain why some people favor using PROD every time (which doesn't include me). They argue that an article that happens to be poorly written on a topic that is not well known might just need improvement, but if it's deleted too soon then the few people who recognize what the article is about won't have a chance to see it. There's clearly some validity in that argument, the disagreement is over how broadly it applies. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I haven't seen the article, but from the title I'd say I would probably have prodded it with the rationale, Opinion piece, and left it on my watchlist. (I am thinking about making a prod template specifically devoted to such cases.) From my experience, such articles are often deleted as prods long before the prod template expires. If it was worse than that, it could have been deleted under either G1 or G3. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 13:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is is administered by humans, and each administrator has their own lens through which they view the guidelines and policies. That doesn't mean that Wikipedia is doomed, however. The crowd is moving in the right direction (betterment of the encyclopedia) even as individual members sometimes move in seemingly random directions. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The default deletion process is AFD not CSD. If you consider that an article merits deletion but it doesn't fit into one of the speedy deletion criteria then I suggest you prod or afd it. If we can identify a type of article that merits speedy deletion then by all means lets discuss that here. But isolated examples rarely make good rule changes, for example I supported the extension of A7 to non-notable pets even though it was yet another slight complication. But I have only deleted two such bios, a hamster and a rabbit, since we made that change. ϢereSpielChequers 14:26, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Well essays and how-tos pop up all the time. Right now there's the lovely Requirements to get a learner permit that was prod'd. This will never be a valid article. Why is it still here? — Timneu22 · talk 18:50, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

For those types of articles, I would nominate under A10. It does not add any more encyclopedic content to Wikipedia that is not already covered at Learner's permit. I think that the vast majority fall under this criterion, and most admins are happy to delete them. Certainly venting about admins isn't going to help, and I agree that for essays (not how-tos) there is no way to word things tightly enough to capture these but keep other things that just have slight problems. One way or another, consensus has rejected this multiple times. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 19:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

That article has already been speedied, under G11. I don't remember its advert tone. A10 it is... it seems this should apply to how-tos also. — Timneu22 · talk 19:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The reason that essays and how-tos are not deleted out of hand is that they sometimes contain encyclopedic content and can be rewritten for tone and style appropriately, e.g. "how to determine if a number is prime" could be merged into primality test, and a well-cited essay on anarchist values could be rewritten as an objective description of anarchist values and merged into anarchism. One could reasonably ask whether anyone's willing to do the clean-up work, but that call is up to PROD/AfD. Dcoetzee 00:10, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Timneu22, also realise that most of those essays and trash articles that get created in the main article space are rarely if ever linked to by their creators on other articles. So the odds of anyone actually ever seeing them (beyond the new page patrollers and the like) is slim to none. Thus, there's no impact to the credibility of the site. Remember the "if a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, did it actually fall" game, well, the same applies with articles that the public will probably never see. Don't worry, they will be take care of quickly. — Huntster (t @ c) 01:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

"image pages without a corresponding image"

Following an issue brought up at ANI, I suggest that this phrase be clarified/expanded to read "image pages without a corresponding image, including those for images hosted at commons".

Note that I have no strong opinion either way, but merely see how the current version can lead to misunderstandings. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 19:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

• I think you need to reword all of G8 to take in the exemptions. In this case, I think it's nonsensical to be adding image description pages locally for Commons images, for the purpose of categorization. If categorization is needed, do it on Commons and use {{Commons category}}. This also helps other projects wishing to categorize the images. Rather than duplicating the effort across multiple language encyclopedias, it's far more efficient to do so on Commons. That's one of the reasons we HAVE Commons. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Too broad. For example, nobody disputes that description pages for Wikipedia featured pictures and current featured picture candidates should be retained. Content-specific categories (eg photos from a particular country) are disputed, though existing practice has always been to allow them prior to today. If your purpose here is to propose a rule stating that we're going to delete "Commons images where the description page consists of nothing but a category and/or other content that duplicates what Commons has (in other words, if there's a useful description that someone has added, copy it there before deleting) and categories that wholly consist of such images", then you should say that.--B (talk) 19:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

• Maybe I am saying that. An example; File:Turk22.jpg was tagged by Sfan for deletion under F2. The category the local description page place the image in is Category:Images of Kazakhstan. There's already categories on Commons that cover this. See Commons:Category:Kazakhstan. What's the point of duplicating the effort??? --Hammersoft (talk) 19:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
• In fact, I'm inclined to place these image categories for deletion. Of 12 images in Category:Images of Kazakhstan, 11 are already on Commons and categorized there. Help is needed to further categorize them (as seems always the case with Commons images). The 12th image is PD and should be moved to Commons. Why have a category for something here that already exists on Commons and can be pointed to there? --Hammersoft (talk) 19:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
  • As long as the category is wholly duplicated, I don't really see any reason to duplicate the effort. As long as the wording is sufficiently specific that it only covers categories that wholly duplicate what Commons has, I don't see a reason not to approve this. I don't know without looking, but there may be categories of Wikipedia-specific images (photos from meetups or some such thing) where Commons categorizations wouldn't make sense. My wording would exclude those as well. --B (talk) 19:47, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I gather that one of the ways this situation can arise is when an image is moved to Commons but its old description page (and categories) remain behind. In other words, it's not just a matter of new description pages being inexplicably uploaded at WP for images hosted on Commons. I think Sfan00 is probably doing the right thing by tagging these legacy description pages for speedy deletion, but G8 does not quite cover the situation and should be worded to explicitly include it. Tim Pierce (talk) 19:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

My concern was mass deletion tagging with no prior discussion. Any time something like that is done, it's rather obnoxious if it has to be undone and, in particular, since we have obviously allowed these images in the past for a long time, it needed discussion, not just for them to wind up in CSD with admins randomly and inconsistently deciding what to do with them. --B (talk) 19:47, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Completely agree that the wording of G8 should specifically include any kind of description page for images on Commons. Honestly, I've always interpreted G8 to already mean this. If for some reason the categorisation at Commons is lacking for a specific image, then bring the issue up there. No need for a duplication of effort. — Huntster (t @ c) 23:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The current rule was added after a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Archive_31#Does_the_deletion_of_a_documentation_page_for_a_deleted_template_fall_under_G6.3F. Prior to that discussion, G8 only applied to talk pages of deleted articles, so it hasn't "always" meant anything - it has only been around since September 2008. In that discussion, the concern was specifically raised that there could be a valid reason to have an en description page and the author of the rule said it was his intention to exclude those and only include description pages that were identical to the Commons page. I think we need to say specifically what we mean - we're going to delete image description pages that have no meaningful content (including categories) other than what is contained on the Commons description page. That means we're not going to delete pages that categorize our featured pictures, and we're not going to delete categories that do not exist at Commons (though if they have relevance outside of the English Wikipedia, they should be moved to Commons). But categories of images are (mostly) going away or turned into NOGALLERY galleries (because they will be fair use only). --B (talk) 01:33, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

If it becomes standard practise to only categorize at commons (when the image exists over there), then something should be done to make the commons categories show up at the wikipedia side of things automatically. That would discourage editors from needing to add a category on wikipedia (Though ideally doing so would add the category at commons if this were implemented) - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 14:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• I think the corresponding levels of support are already in place. We don't need to modify the wiki code to support this change. If there's a category that makes sense and does not exist at Commons, create it at Commons and add images on Commons as appropriate. The lack of the category at Commons is not a reason to put one in place here. It's a reason for more work to be done at Commons. I think in the vast majority of cases (if not all cases), categorizing images locally for images on Commons lacks purpose. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the greater issue is for images that have been migrated to Commons and still have a legacy "description" page behind. I think that deleting such pages should be uncontroversial, and if CSD G8 needs to be reworded to make that clear, then that's what we should do. How about:

G8. Pages dependent on a non-existent or deleted page.

such as ... image pages without a corresponding image or for images that have been moved to Commons... Tim Pierce (talk) 14:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

That's fine, but fails to address the concern of image description pages created after a move to Commons, or even when no move to Commons ever occurred. That is the case for many of these pages; local project members have been creating categories here and adding Commons images to them. So, that 'loophole' would still exist. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:14, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

How about "Image description pages for images hosted at Commons where the content substantially duplicates content on the Commons description page, including categorization." This would mean that if there is something like an en-specific tag or category (meetups, FPC, etc) we don't delete it, and if there is a useful category that doesn't exist at Commons, we don't delete it until the Commons category has been created. But if the en category is just a shadow copy of the Commons one, we blow it away. --B (talk) 12:34, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not a big fan of retaining something waiting for work to happen elsewhere. It serves as a disincentive to doing the work. So, if someone wanted to group photos for an en.wiki, fine, whatever. But, if they're creating local categories waiting for someone to make Commons categories, that's just silly. The same amount of work on Commons results in not having to do it locally, and the work allows lots of other projects to then use it. So, no, the wording is closer but no cigar :) --Hammersoft (talk) 14:10, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Then I suggest that the wording be "or for images hosted on Commons, including images which have been moved to Commons." Tim Pierce (talk) 15:07, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

"Obvious marketing"

Thought you may enjoy this article's text:

Founder of Ad.com.hr

A direct response copywriter and author of Obvious Marketing.

Born in Croatia, considered as one of the most reputable b2b copywriters in direct-response industry.

Retired.

Obvious marketing indeed. — Timneu22 · talk 13:02, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

? .. {{db-spam}}? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, and/or unremarkable person. But I just found it amusing. :) — Timneu22 · talk 14:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

For more of this amusing stuff .. follow the links in {{Spamsearch}}, piles of rubbish (in userspace, though, still most is spam). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

R3 is not clear

R3. Implausible typos.

Recently created redirects from implausible typos or misnomers. However, redirects from common misspellings or misnomers are generally useful, as are redirects in other languages. This does not apply to articles and stubs that have been converted into redirects.

It's not really clear why other language redirects are acceptable, and the link is to the category of redirects from other languages. My experience is that all foreign redirects are in fact deleted, despite this claim in the R3 description. I think some foreign redirects are allowed, but usually only when they are proper titles:

• Les trois mousquetaires -> The Three Musketeers. redirect okay
• Voiture -> car. redirect not okay.

Wikipedia is not a translation site; I don't think the R3 wording is correct, because it sounds as if any foreign redirect is valid. Am I missing something here? — Timneu22 · talk 10:53, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Redirects are not treated like articles but rather with a liberal amount of "it's useful" and "redirects are cheap". Since their purpose is to aid readers in finding the right page, they should be treated with more leniency, especially when it comes to speedy deletion. As such R3 seems pretty clear: if the foreign language redirect makes sense, it should stay. And it does make sense in any case where any reader might have any reason to look for the subject at the foreign language title. Even if it doesn't make sense to other people. Regards SWM (SoWhy[on]Mobile) 12:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes but you didn't really address my concerns. The description in R3, cited above, is not clear. Are all foreign language redirects kept? Absolutely not. "Voiture" is not kept and redirected to "car", nor should it be. However, the original French title of "The Three Musketeers" makes sense as a redirect. So, shouldn't R3 be worded differently? We don't need redirects from every possible language for every possible article. Right now, R3 suggests otherwise. You state "if the foreign language redirect makes sense, it should stay", but where does R3 say that, and further, where does it say what "makes sense"? — Timneu22 · talk 12:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Are they deleted under R3? Because they are not an implausable typo or misnomer .. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:25, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, they are deleted as "implausible", just about all time. A common example: بیمارستان is created and discusses a hospital. The proper thing to do here is A10 deletion (duplicate), but sometimes a user will redirect to hospital. There's no need for that redirect, so it becomes an implausible title. Something like this is the common scenario. I have just checked a random smattering of foreign language redirects from the category, and it appears all of them are redirects to proper titles. I really think the R3 description should state this, if that's indeed the case. (And if it's not the case, let's discuss that too.) — Timneu22 · talk 12:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

In theory, the exemption for foreign-language redirects is there because neither our editors nor our administrators are required to speak any language other than English, and as a consequence they may not be qualified to determine whether some foreign-language redirect is "plausible" or not. Really, though, there are only three categories of foreign-language redirects that are really "plausible" in an English-language encyclopedia: proper names in the original or dominant language related to some subject with a proper name; foreign-language terms that serve as the origin of the English-language word; and terms that are widely believed by an English-speaking audience to be one of these, even if that belief is wrong. Most others are not plausible, and could in theory be made subject to speedy deletion. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:56, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree completely; would like to see R3 worded as such. Note that there's a risk in keeping redirects that common web translators cannot accurately translate. Like "biggest loser in the world" existing in some language and redirecting to a biographical page. Yikes. — Timneu22 · talk 18:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

R3. Implausible typos. (possible wording?)

Recently created redirects from implausible typos or misnomers. However, redirects from common misspellings or misnomers are generally useful. Redirects in other languages are valid only when related to a subject with a proper name or have significance in the English language (i.e., redirect translations for the sake of translating can be deleted using this criterion). This criterion does not apply to articles and stubs that have been converted into redirects.

CSD is not the only deletion mechanism. Simply because CSD says they shouldn't be deleted via CSD doesn't mean they should not be handled by another deletion method. WP:RFD is the appropriate place for handling these cases, not CSD. They do not happen often enough to require speedy deletion. In addition, while foreign language redirects to general topics typically are deleted, the definition of a general topic is not as concrete as 'not a proper name'. The suggested wording to too restrictive based on WP:RFD precedent. -- JLaTondre (talk) 21:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The discussion here is that R3 is not clear. The wording is vague, and needs to be tidied; what is a foreign language redirect? What's the purpose of the link? The link to the categories is highly confusing. And sorry but RFD is a total waste of time on these. — Timneu22 · talk 21:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

None of your suggested wording changes address the vagueness you claim. Instead, it seeks to expand the scope of R3 beyond what it currently is. Your statement about what the discussion is and what you have actually proposed do not match.

RFD is hardly a waste of time. It is pretty low weight and it is much better to get knowledgeable input on the many boundary cases that your proposal would automatically have deleted. Black Falcon provided an excellent summary of precedent here. The problem is that "no connection between the topic of the target article and the language of the redirect" is not unambiguous and sometimes needs debate. Simply because the target is not a proper name does not mean that there is not a connection or that because it is a proper name that there is (ex. redirecting München to Munich is different than redirecting ミュンヘン to it). -- JLaTondre (talk) 23:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

First, no one here even seems sure of what the policy is. I'm taking a guess, based on the review of existing foreign redirects, which all seem to point to proper titles. Second, I think removing the foreign language text altogether is worthwhile. Third, I'll give it another shot:

R3. Implausible typos. (possible wording?) two

Recently created redirects from implausible typos or misnomers. However, redirects from common misspellings or misnomers are generally useful. This criterion does not apply to articles and stubs that have been converted into redirects.

This criterion also applies to any redirect that is not in English, with the following exception: redirects to a proper name or title, where the redirect is in a foreign language of the title's origin, can be kept. For example, Les Trois Mousquetaires, the original title of The Three Musketeers, is a valid redirect. See also, redirects in redirects from alternative languages

• {{db-r3}}, {{db-redirtypo}}, {{db-redirmisnomer}}

The criterion was made essentially vague as to not become a victim of instruction creep. I rarely invoke it, but I would say that wherever no one can tell how a redirect can be plausible, it can safely be assumed implausible. Some things to check for that could save an R3 candidate are whether the redirect contains an {{R from alternate language}} (or other R from...) template, whether and how the term of the redirect was covered in the target article at the time the redirect was made, etc. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

But what's plausible? The $64k quesitno. بیمارستان apparently means "hospital", but a redirect with that name seems implausible, on the English wikipedia. — Timneu22 · talk 09:53, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Foreign language redirects are quite plausible; they happen all the time. There is a difference between plausible and desirable. The foreign language clause is exclusionary, not an inclusion. If you want to see a clause for common word foreign language redirects, than a better approach would be to remove it totally from R3 and create a new criteria. Typos and foreign language are not the same thing. -- JLaTondre (talk) 17:28, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I do think that the foreign language clause should be removed from R3, and yes, a new criterion created. Right now it's like that sentence is tacked on to the definition for no reason, except to confuse people. I think we'd be best to just remove that sentence altogether. — Timneu22 · talk 17:33, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Reengaging this thread. Any thoughts on what to do with the foreign language part of this criterion? I really think it is confusing, and/or the policy is not clear. — Timneu22 · talk 11:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Policy is perfectly clear. Foreign language redirects aren't R3's. What you're trying to do, whether you realize it or not, is introduce a new criterion. —Korath (Talk) 12:49, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Books under A7

Why aren't books listed under A7 when they don't signify importance? Battleaxe9872 ^Talk 17:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

A common question; personally I don't have the answer. I think it's because it is difficult to tell if a book is important or not. But if it doesn't signify importance, well I'm not sure. — Timneu22 · talk 17:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

That; and mostly because they simply don't appear often enough as new articles to warrant speedy deletion. Regards SoWhy 17:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

It looks like the archives have lots of requests for both books and software. I'd say that software is definitely creeping up on the "happens enough" argument, especially with all the new Android and iPhone apps wanting attention. Maybe the new review process could provide a means for software-knowledgeable people to get a look at those articles first. — Timneu22 · talk 17:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Related to that - after closing this AFD, I was thinking, if books could be including in the A9 criteria. If the author is not notable then the book normally should not be notable whatsoever. Therefore A9 could in addition to musical recording that criteria should apply to published works from authors without articles, etc - or we could simply add another A (number) criteria. JForget 01:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I think many notable books are written by authors without Wikipedia articles. WP:AUTHOR prevents most articles from being created unless they are significantly notable, so I don't think that an A9 would work for books. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 14:40, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Images for speedy deletion templates?

Svgalbertian suggested at Template talk:Db-meta that we might want to use one of these images (or another) in the speedy templates (like other projects do). I wanted to advertise the discussion about it here where more people will notice it. MSGJ (talk · contribs) created some /testcases for it. Regards SoWhy 14:06, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I like the first. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:52, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I must have phrased the request uncles. I just wanted to advertise the discussion, not bring it to this page (and split it). Please place further comments at Template talk:Db-meta#Images available. Regards SoWhy 18:06, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

db-web and memes?

Do internet memes qualify under A7, db-web? — Timneu22 · talk 18:04, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Of course, if they don't assert significance. An article that simply acclaims something as an internet meme is probably a routine db-web A7 - if it makes more specific claims to significance and notability, then it probably isn't. ~ mazca ^talk 02:04, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

It's a tough call as to what is "web content"; usually this is a website or a webblog (still a site) or a youtube video (still a site). That's why I ask. — Timneu22 · talk 03:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

R2 - Redirects from namespace

Redirects to WP:Articles for creation resulting from a misplaced article for creation are not eligible for this criteria because it is a redirect to wp: namespace. Could we add a clause that allows this? Marcus Qwertyus 17:17, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I may be misunderstanding (an example would help), but it sounds like a "G6. Technical deletions" case. -- JLaTondre (talk) 17:24, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree - no need to change R2 which does not list those redirects for good reasons. In this special case, G6 applies. Regards SoWhy 17:37, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I didn't know g6 applied to that. Thanks. Marcus Qwertyus 17:39, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced articles, it seems, means "accident" in this case, which is certainly G6. — Timneu22 · talk 17:40, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

G8 -> Useless navigation templates

Can G8 (Pages dependent on a non-existent or deleted page) be extended onto navigation templates (or is there a different template)? I know of a template that links pages that are currently on PROD and can't find a speedy-deletion template to put on it. Any help? FMasic (talk) 19:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

If you're talking about orphaned templates, you may take it to TFD, as it is always better to discuss it; I see the rationale "orphaned template" often there. I wouldn't go ahead and do that, even, until you are sure that nothing links to the template. My first impression is that you want to zap the template that is currently being used :'(; in other words, you look a bit delete-happy. Not good. About the specific case you mentioned above - no, do not send it to TFD (and don't G8 it, as it doesn't apply!) Does this help? Airplaneman ✈ 22:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Disagree. If/when the template is no longer being used, feel free to send it to TfD as unused. There's no reason to keep such a navigation template around if it is orphaned (and at this point in time, I don't see that it won't be orphaned in the near future...those episode simply aren't notable enough to warrant their own article). — Huntster (t @ c) 22:44, 27 July 2010 (UTC)