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; deleted as G2 by Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 19:14, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Paul Ehrlich died of a stroke (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template has only been used once (by its creator) since 2008, and has no reasonable expectation of future use. Also, self-contradictory: "died of a stroke" ↭ "heart attack". Senator2029 (talk) 17:14, 27 May 2012 (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.

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) 00:14, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

WP:NENAN Night of the Big Wind _talk 16:13, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete nothing to do with the phases of the Moon, or the phases of matter, or phases in frequencies. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 04:13, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete Clearly not about any of those things, but about a band with this name. I would hold off on deleting until we here from the Articles for deletion discussion of the band. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 06:00, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If the band's article is deleted, this can be speedied as G8; if the band's article is kept, this would still meet WP:NENAN. Either way, delete. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:37, 29 May 2012 (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.

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 keep Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:15, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Expand article (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not really needed; as much can be said with a stub tag. Rcsprinter (post) 14:19, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Not entirely redundant, as a 5000 character article on Suharto, while still needing expansion, is beyond a stub. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:33, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - It's a functional template that encourages article expansion. Stub templates are displayed at the end of articles. The expand template is displayed at the top or in sections. Also, the template is useful due to its prose stating "Some suggested sources are given hereafter.", which can pertain to listed sources within articles. The stub template doesn't expound in this fashion. Contrary to the nomination, this could also be characterized as "not really needed" to be removed. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:21, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep, as just another in a long series of unsuccessful nominations of maintenance templates. Debresser (talk) 20:11, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - It reminds and attracts new or existing editors for improving the articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omer123hussain (talk • contribs)
• Keep — This maintenance template is useful, and as far as I know, is not redundant. To find articles that need to be worked on, there are also the administrative categories Category:Articles_to_be_expanded and Wikipedia:Backlog. AllenZh (talk) 01:50, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, it's not only stubs that need expanding. - filelakeshoe 13:12, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Excellent flag for non-stub articles that can benefit from expansion. Sort of serves as a "tell us more about this subject" flag. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 16:37, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Improve and Keep - We need to keep this because it helps in expanding article by flagging "Some suggested sources are given hereafter. More information might be found in a section of the talk page. " However, we should improve it by adding a parameter saying which all sections need to be expanded and using which source (if source is available) Onkarr (talk) 00:03, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Whilst not used very much, this template may be appropiate to use for topic whose articles do not tell very much. --George Ho (talk) 05:37, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: being a stub and needing expansion aren't mutually inclusive. You can be a stub and not need expanding (some articles have a finite amount to be said about them), and you can be long enough to not be a stub, but still have glaring inadequacies pbp 15:43, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: on the grounds that deleting useful stuff (which isn't libellous or copyright-infringing) is Always Always Bad. --Matt Westwood 20:57, 3 June 2012 (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.

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) 00:16, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Amie Gunter (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template created by a user who hasn't edited since 2010 Kumioko (talk) 11:38, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment apparently this is a duplicate of Template:User WP PW D O N D E groovily Talk to me 06:02, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No use at all. (Note: It seems that what happened was as follows. A new member tried to add themselves to Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Members list, which they should have done using ((user|AmieGunter)), but, being new, misunderstood and used ((user Amie Gunter)) instead. Creating this template was an attempt to deal with the resulting failure to show up on the list properly. Another user corrected the error, and this template has lain unused ever since. Also, the user never edited again after that day, over two years ago.) JamesBWatson (talk) 08:34, 30 May 2012 (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.

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 keep Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:18, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Db-spamuser (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Spam-warn-userpage (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

this template is not mentioned on WP:G11 and is not used by twinkle, despite what docs say — if anything, should be redirected to template:db-g11 A:-)Brunuś (talk) 11:30, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...except that template:db-g11 refers to "articles" -- and note that the "G" in "G11" means PAGES, not articles. And usage or non-usage by Twinkle signifies what exactly? Other than a confusion of bureaucratic pigeon-holing with actual usage, that is. --Calton | Talk 14:26, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, there is no requirement that G11 is used on articles - the "G" means that it can be used anywhere. Remove the twinkle warning if twinkle doesn't use it, and mention it on the Speedy Delete page. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 06:04, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, no good reason to delete. Go and suggest to the twinkle developers that they implement the template. It's useful to be as specific as possible when boilerplating user talk pages. - filelakeshoe 13:10, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow keep A useful template, with no meaningful reason given for deletion. (The only reasons given for deletion are that it is not mentioned on WP:G11, and that it is not used by twinkle, neither of which is, by any stretch of the imagination, a reason for deletion.) (Besides, it now is mentioned at WP:G11, because I've added it there.) The documentation can be corrected. Redirecting to ((db-g11)) would be unhelpful, as this template contains information specific to user pages, and not included in ((db-g11)). JamesBWatson (talk) 15:10, 29 May 2012 (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.

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) 00:18, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ruders operas (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only navigates two articles. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:00, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only navigates to one article, actually. See also my comments at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 May 30#Single entry opera sidebar templates. – Voceditenore (talk) 20:03, 31 May 2012 (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.

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) 00:21, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Born This Way (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Another one pretty much redundant to the existing artist template, ((Lady Gaga)). Template:The Fame was also recently deleted with similar reasoning. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 00:41, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per precedent. Frietjes (talk) 20:58, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Same information that can be written in Template:Lady Gaga and Template:Lady Gaga singles. Lucas S. ^msg 00:46, 3 June 2012 (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.

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) 00:21, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Teenage Dream (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per precedent, WP:NENAN, and redundancy to ((Katy Perry)). Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 00:33, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per precedent. Frietjes (talk) 20:58, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Same information that can be written in Template:Katy Perry and Template:Katy Perry singles. Lucas S. ^msg 00:47, 3 June 2012 (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.

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) 00:21, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:A Girl like Me (Rihanna album) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Music of the Sun (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

These three album templates are unused and unneeded. TfDs on similar templates have resulted in delete (see Template:Ray of Light and Template:Rated R (Rihanna album) only from a few weeks ago). --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 00:18, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per precedent. Frietjes (talk) 20:59, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Same information that can be written in other templates. Lucas S. ^msg 00:52, 3 June 2012 (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.