Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:Philosophy-of-language-key-terms

:{{pagelinks|Template:Philosophy-of-language-key-terms}}

::{{grey|(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.)}} –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 14:26, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Dubious and redundant. It is included into a single article tagged as original research. The template is a dubious original research in its own. Nowhere from the article it follows that these are the (and the only) "essential terms" for article subject. Moreover, I doubt that ancient notions such as Genus and species are really essential today. How they can be essential, if they are not discussed in the article? And their own articles are a sore. If they are essential, then they must have their section and visible in the TOC, hence the template is redundant anyway. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:08, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete I have no idea what this is, where it was used, or why I even created it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:27, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
• :{{re|Headbomb}} could you relist this or instead bring it to the right forum? MFD isn't normally for templates. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 07:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
• ::{{Re|MJL}} not my nomination. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:36, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
• :::{{re|Headbomb}} I only ask because you transcluded it. I also never manually relisted an MFD before, but I've done so now. {{shrug}} –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 14:26, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I relisted it in Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 August 6#Template:Philosophy-of-language-key-terms. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:33, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

: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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.