December 2
Template:2008-09 Philadelphia 76ers roster
- 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).
The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 05:40, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This template is outdated and not needed anymore. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 19:05, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No existing transclusions.—Bagumba (talk) 10:07, 3 December 2015 (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).
Template:10 Ka Dum
- 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).
The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 05:48, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Only one transclusion, that too on the main subject page where all links are already available for navigation. Seems useless. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:55, 2 December 2015 (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).
Template:Arjun (TV series)
- 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).
The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) BethNaught (talk) 07:40, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Only one transclusion, that too on the main subject page where all links are already available for navigation. Seems useless. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:54, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- delete, useless. Frietjes (talk) 15:56, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Once you remove the actors and the production company, etc., none of which are suitable for a navbox, you are left with nothing. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:46, 8 December 2015 (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).
Template:SuperCops vs Supervillains
- 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).
The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) BethNaught (talk) 07:40, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Only one transclusion, that too on the main subject page where all links are already available for navigation. Seems useless. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:54, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- delete, useless. Frietjes (talk) 15:57, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Once you remove the actors and the production company, etc., none of which are suitable for a navbox, you are left with nothing. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:48, 8 December 2015 (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).
- 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).
The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 05:48, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Only one transclusion, that too on the main subject page where all links are already available for navigation. Seems useless. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:43, 2 December 2015 (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).
Template:Tedi Medi Family
- 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).
The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) BethNaught (talk) 07:40, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Only one transclusion, that too on the main subject page where all links are already available for navigation. Seems useless §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:42, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- delete, useless. Frietjes (talk) 15:57, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Once you remove the actors and the production company, etc., none of which are suitable for a navbox, you are left with nothing. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:48, 8 December 2015 (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).
Template:Comedy Superstars
- 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).
The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 05:51, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Only one transclusion, that too on the main subject page where all links are already available for navigation. Seems useless. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:37, 2 December 2015 (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).
- 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).
The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 05:52, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Only one transclusion, that too on the main subject page where all links are already available for navigation. Seems useless. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:36, 2 December 2015 (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).
Template:Aap Ki Kachehri
- 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).
The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 05:54, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Only one transclusion, that too on the main subject page where all links are already available for navigation. Seems useless. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:33, 2 December 2015 (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).
Template:Code Red (Indian TV series)
- 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).
The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) BethNaught (talk) 07:40, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Unused template seems useless which includes links to only actors who have worked in the show. I don't think we make templates on this basis. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:33, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- delete, useless. Frietjes (talk) 15:57, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Once you remove the actors and the production company, etc., none of which are suitable for a navbox, you are left with nothing. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:48, 8 December 2015 (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).
Template:Comedy Nights Bachao
- 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).
The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 05:57, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Only one transclusion, that too on the main subject page where all links are already available for navigation. Seems useless. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:31, 2 December 2015 (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).
Template:Rock-N-Roll Family
- 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).
The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 05:59, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Only one transclusion, that too on the main subject page where all links are already available for navigation. Seems useless. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:30, 2 December 2015 (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).
Template:Comedy Nights with Kapil
- 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).
The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 06:02, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Only one transclusion, that too on the main subject page where all links are already available for navigation. Seems useless. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:30, 2 December 2015 (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).
Template:Oregon University System
- 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).
The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 02:32, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Template that is purposeless, it doesn't provide much information and is not widely used. Liz Read! Talk! 01:28, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This navbox was previously used for the seven Oregon institutions of higher education that were governed by the Oregon University System (OUS), which became defunct as of July 1, 2015. Not only are there no institutions in the OUS now, there is zero probability that any institutions will be added in the future, because the Oregon legislature has made the OUS agency defunct, and has given governing authority to independent boards for each institution. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 01:56, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I appreciate the opportunity to respond, and find the logic for deleting this template persuasive and well-considered. I have no objection to the deletion process moving forward. I'd forgotten all about having made this and it was a pleasant stroll down memory lane to recall my first efforts as an editor and all the evolution that has taken place on Wikipedia since. Peter J. Mello 14:38, 2 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ViceEmperor816 (talk • contribs)
- Keep and restore that the system no longer exists is not the same as there never having been such a system. This template should be restored to all the articles that used to be in the system. We do not only write articles about what exists today, we write about the past as well. This is WP:RECENTISM in only evaluating the current situation, and not historic facts. WP:NOTNEWS Wikipedia is not a newspaper, we do care about history. Ignoring the fact that the system existed is not a good idea. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 07:56, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The question is whether the navbox should reflect accurately the current membership of the system, which is nil, and last year had also been edited to show only the last four institutions. The article Oregon University System maintains the integrity of the historical facts, listing all seven of the institutions that used to be in the system. Retaining a navigational aid that is contrary to fact would be misleading and inaccurate. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 08:24, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. It is too much to keep navboxes for all possible historical groupings that a university has been in. It leads to unnecessary clutter at the bottom of pages. Of course, articles on the Oregon University System, and mentions of the System in university articles, should remain as necessary. — This, that and the other (talk) 10:33, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- delete, no longer needed. Frietjes (talk) 15:57, 3 December 2015 (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).