< January 25	January 27 >

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 page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 23:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:IndiaGov[edit]

Template:IndiaGov (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete — Fair use tags must explicitly specify what valid uses the images have. This tag is too vague and can't easily be rewritten to meet the previous requirement. Furthermore, almost none of the images tagged with it appear to be fair use. JYolkowski // talk 23:30, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Original version was PD-IndiaGov, and was incorrect: works of the Indian government are copyrighted for 60 years. Current version is just plain useless. --Carnildo 02:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nominator.--nixie 04:45, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom -- DaGizza^{Chat ©} 07:34, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nominator has valid concerns, which could be addressed and I have updated the text to better reflect what constitutes a work of the Indian government. If you have any concerns, I would be happy to look at it. This license is necessary, because a large no. of Images are uploaded, because people don't know that a work of the Indian government is copyrighted. --Pamri • Talk 06:47, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On second thoughts, delete. It doesn't add much and better to use the existing fair-use tags. --Pamri • Talk 08:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The updated text carries the message of copyright in letter and spirit. Images from the websites of the Indian Government can be used under fair use.(Many people in India dont know the real meaning of copyright. Webmasters just add the text at the bottom of the website without realizing that some of their content is infringed) I belive fair use of images which can't be easily sourced from other avenues should be allowed or else many of the images related war, people and events will get deleted. User:Aravind parvatikar Talk 07:08, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The rewritten template still does not meet the requirements for a fair use image. We should be avoiding giving the impression that anything lifted from an Indian government site is fair use. These images should be dealt with under the existing fair use framework. Furthermore the template is not in wide use (I can only see four inclusions), so deleting this misleading template should not cause any great harm.--nixie 23:40, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete : No longer valid. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:23, 30 January 2006 (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 page.

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 page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 23:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Periodic table[edit]

Template:Periodic table (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete — The template holds table code for the large article Periodic table, and is not used anywhere else (see links). It has now been obsoleted by transclusion of the small article Periodic table (standard) – equivalent to the template – into the large article. The large and the small article were created in 2001 and 2002, respectively. The template was created in March 2005 by taking out parts of the large article. Eddi (Talk) 21:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nominator Flying Jazz 13:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; obsolete. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 08:42, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Yeah. ^KILO-_LIMA 17:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep and merg This template sred be merg with article Periodic table history, to preszerve the history of the periodic table .**My Cat inn @ (talk)** 06:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean merge and delete? Regarding a merge of histories, I'm not sure how this is done, but I think a merge with Periodic table (standard) might be more relevant than with Periodic table. --Eddi (Talk) 23:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, a merge involves the undeletion of one page over the other and is not an option here. With two existing histories it would result in a mess that "official quote: may only be undone by spending quite silly amounts of time". For historical reasons, the template could be archived at Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements/archive/Template:Periodic table, though its edits are mostly of a trivial nature, or about things that have been discussed elsewhere. Just in case I salvaged Template talk:Periodic table into Talk:Periodic table (standard). So, my vote is delete. Femto 11:40, 3 February 2006 (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 page.

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 page.

The result of the debate was SUBST and DELETE. -Splash^talk 23:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:United States Constitution ratification vote[edit]

Template:United States Constitution ratification vote (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete — The template is not used (which is reason #3 on Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#What (and what not) to propose for deletion at TfD. It had been used only for one article, United States Constitution, and I can't imagine what other articles could use it. I've subst-ed the template into the article. —Markles 18:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. You are wrong. It is used in another article, which for some reason doesn't show up in "What links here." I like how you made your move with no discussion. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 19:12, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry. I didn't know it was used in one other article. Nevertheless, it seems like a pointless template. We can keep it if you're really attached to it. —Markles 20:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a template for this is not needed. - Hayter 19:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Subst and delete. Stifle 20:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Subst and delete. This does not need to be a template; it consists of historical facts which will not change. Cmadler 12:19, 1 February 2006 (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 page.

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 page.

The result of the debate was Nomination withdrawn Prodego ^talk 01:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Wikipedia search[edit]

Template:User Wikipedia search (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete — Pointless, as wikipedia is not a search engine Prodego ^talk 17:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC) withdrawn per changes to template.[reply]

• Delete - "as their first point of reference" perhaps, but not search. - Hayter 18:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP everyone check the template again - it's been changed to say the user uses wikipedia as a reference which is something we can all agree with.--God of War 20:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's better, but I can't believe there already isn't a template about using Wikipeida as a 'primary point of reference', otherwise I would have changed it myself. But, I can find no evidence of such a duplicate existing, so let's keep. Prodego ^talk 22:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• keep, agree with God of War.Lee S. Svoboda tɑk 21:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per God of War. —Andux 22:04, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - now useful and nom reason removed. -Xol 23:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Harmless and seeks to promote and unite wikipedians Trödel•talk 01:13, 27 January 2006 (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 page.

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 page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash^talk 23:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Defban[edit]

That would be a legal threat, then. Goes with Template:Defwarn that probably needs removing as well, but that can go for a seperate nomination depending on what happens here. The present template uses such biting language that I nearly speedied it. IMO, it should probably never be used. Worryingly, it already has been. Delete. -Splash^talk 17:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I know it's a legal threat, but let's face it: it does have a warning notice on it about extreme circumstances etc.--TheDoctor10 (talk|email) 18:38, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Both: Per WP:NLT Keep, per Jtdirl Prodego ^talk 19:02, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't think so much energy should be put into WP:NLT (perhaps that's naive) but it's 'Pedia policy and it's pretty clear. This is a legal threat and should be removed. That goes for the other one too. - Hayter 19:24, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NLT and because it is non-global. Stifle 20:46, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It is not a legal threat. It was created after consultation with members of the arbcom (the advice of Jimbo was also sought). It is an explanation that while Wikipedia is covered legally in the event of defamation statements placed on it, the user who placed them is explicitly stated in law not to be. This template was created to deal with specific cases where users as a childish game were posting clearly defamatory statements (one now banned user accused Jimbo of child sex abuse in sixty messages, for example, another individual was accused of rape, another user was stated to be a convicted rapist of young girls, all untrue, I might add) oblivious to the fact that under US law (which is the relevant source of law in this case) the poster was leaving themselves open to being sued. As mentioned it was created after consultation with members of the arbcom and the advice of Jimbo was sought. It is only used in extreme cases (as it is explicitly stated that it is only to be used sparingly). The arbcom and Jimbo have ruled that individuals posting threats of the sort of defamation are to be banned immediately and indefinitely. Defban explains to the user the legal reasons for their ban. Defwarn informs a user that they may have unintentionally posted a defamatory comment that leaves them in legal jeopardy of being sued, and informs them of the need to re-examine their edits, to have the offending edit removed from WP by a developer, and of the danger that if they do not do so they are liable to face an immediate indefinite WP ban. The wording, in particular of defban, is based on legal advice as to wording and tone. I am astonished that Splash knows so little about the problems WP has faced of late with vandals posting defamation. Those who have had to deal with defamation being posted (including having to remove all records of defamation posted from Wikipedia records) have praised the template for communicating the legal situation clearly. It was also made clear by all those consulted in the arbcom and elsewhere that this template is not covered by WP's policy on no legal threats because it is not a threat by a user but it simply points out the legal situation a user is in thanks to posting defamation. In fact it is in practice a practical necessity in so far as in the event of a serious case of defamation on Wikipedia which results in a storm of protect, WP can point to this template's existence as evidence that it takes the issue of defamation seriously, warns users if an example is spotted, and blocks them with a detailed explanation on occasion. So it has a practical use both in protecting users from getting themselves into legal difficulties and in protecting WP from appearing not to take defamation lightly. As a result it is necessary and the message in it has (on rare occasions) to be communicated. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 00:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• In response to Splash, I'd like to quote from Wikipedia:No legal threats:

Similarly, slander, libel, or defamation of character is not to be tolerated on Wikipedia. True instances of such writing, which might legitimately expose Wikipedia to legal sanction, should immediately be called to the attention of an administrator and/or the community at large. Disagreements as to the identity of a person, their motivations for a given action, opinions of third parties about them, etc. do not fall under slander, however, and legal threats cannot be used to have points of view enshrined in an article.

Keep, per Jtdirl. Mackensen (talk) 00:55, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Defamation is a serious problem which affects the credibility of the project. Fred Bauder 01:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Jtdirl and Fred Bauder. A critical precaution as Wikipedia comes under rapidly increasing scrutiny with the growth of its notoriety. A certain editor of the John Seigenthaler Sr. article comes to mind... 172 | Talk 04:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it is not a legal threat, it warns a user that by making defamatory statments someone may choose to take legal action- which is entirely true.--nixie 04:48, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. -Xol 05:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep wikipedia professional and credible, crack down on all vandalism as appropriate. Djegan 20:48, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest to add some of the above into Template talk:Defban and make usage instructions vs. rationale vs. approval very clear-cut. I'd say right now the text there is rather chaotic. mikka (t) 01:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is very much needed and gives a clear message to the respective user posting such info. --Winter 22:59, 31 January 2006 (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 page.

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 page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 23:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Prinsessakerho[edit]

Template:Prinsessakerho (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
The article the template links to, Prinsessakerho, was deleted per AfD. It was judged not notable enough. Therefore I don't see much point in keeping this template around any more. Delete and remove from articles it appears in. JIP | Talk 12:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• See also Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Prinsessakerho --Easyas12c 12:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, even if everyone on the club and the club itself was notable, it would still be a single-sentence template used at most on 14 articles. As they aren't, it's useless. - Bobet 19:37, 26 January 2006 (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 page.

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 page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Clearly, the change to the template did not change minds. -Splash^talk 23:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User vand[edit]

Template:User vand (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
We shouldn't have "self-proclaimed vandals" on Wikipedia, nor templates designed to encourage them. I generally have a pretty laissez-faire attitude towards userboxes, but this one blatantly crosses the line. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 06:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It implies that vandalism is a legitimate part of Wikipedia, which it obviously is not. -Chairman S. 07:23, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Vandalism should never be promoted in Wikipedia --Wikipedian DOG 09:57, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with extreme prejudice. -- Fuzheado | Talk 09:49, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - and please note that, if this survives, I intend to block anyone that uses it. --Doc ^ask? 09:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - vandalism should not be encouraged or even interpreted as acceptable in a humorous context. Editors may occasionally vehemently disagree about article content, but vandals aid no one. - Hayter 16:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - when I first saw it, I thought it was a bit odd, but didn't like to say anything.--TheDoctor10 (talk|email) 18:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Now this would give browsers the wrong idea about wikipedia. Ian¹³_ID:540053 19:23, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Modify and Keep. I understand the concern raised by this tfd so I have changed the box to read: This User is a reformed wikipedia vandal. I think we should encourage vandals to reform, don't you guys?--God of War 20:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good job God. I was going to make one that said that eventually. Keep per God of War's edit. --The most intelligent Wikipedian to exist, period! 21:18, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My delete vote stands --Doc ^ask? 21:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unpersuasive. The reform should involve leaving their past behind, and their talk page will provide record of any unapproved behavior. -- nae'blis _(talk) 21:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that many vandals start off with ip level vandalising before they see the value of the project. They then get themselves a brand new user account that doesñ't show any record of vandalism.--God of War 23:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Naeblis --- Charles Stewart^(talk) 21:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to Template:reformed vandal or something like that.Lee S. Svoboda tɑk 21:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. A user should not be proud of having been a vandal, or others might do the same. -Xol 23:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per having a sense of humor. What good does it do to keep the vandals from slapping a label on themselves? This box doesn't actually cause vandalism, and if a vandal is dumb enough to use it, Doc will certainly be there to revert them. Deleting the userbox does not help anything. --Dschor 00:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Well, currently it can serve as a way to find vandals. Look at User:Lamington-Child - he should be blocked for openly vandalizing and vandalism history on his talk page, and his user page! - look at it!. -Xol 00:19, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duly blocked. Who's up next? --Doc ^ask? 00:48, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just cheked out the other user linking to the page: User:Conrad-14 year old socialist. According to his self-made info-box, he's a "part time wikipedia vandal." He is alsop "Un-American" according to a userbox, not to mention the fact that he wants to overthrow the government in favor of socialism. I'm going to check whether he added the box before the update. -Xol 04:41, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he added it before the update. He is a self-proclaimed Wikipedia vandal. Such a stupid person to lose to such a stupid cause. -Xol 04:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• WTF! He's using my user_immortal box and yet his usernames says he's 14! I am the only immortal on wikipedia.--God of War 05:13, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should subst it on your page and apply it for deletion, reason= author request? -Xol 05:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep new version. - Cuivienen 04:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, the reworded version is pointless as that's not what it's used for. Radiant_>|< 13:11, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Although I am very much for users displaying their views on their userpages, this one shouldnt be there. Vandalism is a very damaging and annoying action, and happens enough in Wikipedia as it is. We do not need more people to be encouraged to vandalise, which this template may do. The new version doesnt really promote vandalism but, as said above, isnt the original intent of the userbox and therefore wont't get used half as much - • Dussst • ^{T | C} 15:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This template doesn't make the job of writing an encyclopedia one bit easier, and its presence is sending the wrong signal to newcomers. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 17:51, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete old, move new, because the reworded version wasn't what it had been used for. --AySz88^-^ 18:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per the discussion here, I have created a new template Template:User reformed vandal--God of War 20:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And it was deleted because it's a fork. Oy. --AySz88^-^ 02:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Djegan 20:51, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete AnnH ^(talk) 17:57, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Although it seems nearly impossible to override the horde of users which wishes to turn Wikipedia into MySpace by playing along with their voting game, I do not wish my silence to be considered agreement. --Gmaxwell 17:41, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Xolatron Trödel•talk 19:35, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep You guys know this is a joke, right? Banana04131 23:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It is of course humorous. It is intended for LAUGHING, not seriously. --Cyclopia 23:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Of course nobody intend to say "I come to vandalize" - otherwise they wouldn't be logged in (and have so much energy to put up a template). Humor on user pages should be allowed. Deryck C. 16:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someone needs to add a :) or something, at least. --AySz88^-^ 02:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep "reformed wiki vandal" version. Though I don't know why anyone would use such a template. --Fang Aili 04:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and nae'blis. Michael Slone (talk) 05:22, 6 February 2006 (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 page.

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 page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 23:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:91X[edit]

Template:91X (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete — List of countdowns by year of a radio station in California. All the year countdowns have now been deleted via precedent here. Pepsidrinka 04:57, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, template that only consists of redlinks to pages that shouldn't exist. - Bobet 19:37, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above -Xol 23:26, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom – Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 01:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all above. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 01:25, 8 February 2006 (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 page.

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 page.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete per CSD:G7. Stifle 20:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD-AUGov[edit]

Template:PD-AUGov (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete — Images are not PD because of they are the work of the Australian government. Was only attached to one image which has been retagged as nolicense. The only image was actually under a not free at all license. This template makes people think that any work of the Australian government is PD when they are not. Secretlondon 02:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete patently false.--nixie 04:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Untrue. -Chairman S. 10:39, 26 January 2006 (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 page.

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 page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 23:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:MLB see also Phillies[edit]

Template:MLB see also Phillies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete - unused template. Rmhermen 02:13, 26 January 2006 (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 page.

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 page.

The result of the debate was Speedy keep, nominator withdrew and no votes to delete. - Bobet 13:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rayment[edit]

Template:Rayment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete — Freehosting site transcluded in 60+ articles. Site has 4 "link:" results. I doubt this page deserves this many citations from us. Perfecto 01:54, 26 January 2006 (UTC) --Perfecto 01:54, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, since to my knowledge including it is a compromise solution per Wikipedia:Request for immediate removal of copyright violation#Historic list of members of the Privy Council. The same reference is used on many pages, making this template useful. - Bobet 02:04, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep. This template is shorthand because we refer to it for information on peerages, baronetcies, and members of parliament. This is about proper citation of sources. It's also quite wrong to claim that his information is unreliable. Mackensen (talk) 02:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Site has four Google "link:" results and has alexa rank 136K. ""Leigh Rayment's Peerage Page" -wikipedia -categories" gives 169 nn hits. I seriously doubt that this is a reliable resource. What the "compromise" discussion 18 months ago tells me is that the site has a fanbase here. Outside Wikipedia, I doubt it. Widespread linkage cases in Wikipedia similar to this is called spam. --Perfecto 03:30, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please try not to make judgements like this in areas you clearly have absolutely no experience in. Do you seriously think the reliability of a website covering a highly-specialised area with very little internet coverage can be judged by Google popularity as if it were a website on computer games or football? Proteus (Talk) 11:34, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep. Don't be absurd. Proteus (Talk) 11:34, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep. – ugen64 14:37, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Virtually all the information on Ronald Bell is available from a variety of other sources. I would oppose deletion. 195.194.75.209 12:34, 26 January 2006 (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 page.

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 page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. It's already been subst:ed into its only article. -Splash^talk 23:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Champions of Pro Football[edit]

Template:Champions of Pro Football (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Subst and delete — This is currently only used on one article: National Football League championships. Unless someone puts it on a second article or has another suggestion, it has got to go because of the waste of server resources. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:57, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Subst and delete. I think that only one page really should need this, so it is useless to have a template used only once. -Xol 00:59, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Subst and delete as above. Neonumbers 04:15, 26 January 2006 (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 page.