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 relisted on 2016 August 4. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:45, 4 August 2016 (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 relisted on 2016 August 4. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:43, 4 August 2016 (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 relisted on 2016 August 4. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:42, 4 August 2016 (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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:40, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:BOTW (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

External link template, created 2011, with only one transclusion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:39, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete as little used. I found one other article that could transclude it, but the only other pages with this url are not in article space and I'm not sure why the template uses two slashes after the domain —PC-XT+ 01:19, 28 July 2016 (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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:38, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:BillboardDB (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

External link template, created in 2007, and still with only two transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:38, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Weak keep for now as there are many links, some of which could possibly use this (note that I haven't found any appropriate uses, yet, and may very well change to delete) —PC-XT+ 01:22, 28 July 2016 (UTC) 01:52, 28 July 2016 (UTC) These are mainly used as references and I found no use for this template in article space —PC-XT+ 02:40, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The linking methodology seems broken (those IDs do not seem to be used by the site any longer). 50.53.1.33 (talk) 11:16, 2 August 2016 (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. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:05, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Fullerverse (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Given that the article in question was recently deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fullerverse, do we really need this? This seems to have been created around the same time. We have ((Bryan Fuller)) to deal with most of the links. Rob Sinden (talk) 15:18, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I was going to suggest it be renamed ((Bryan Fuller)) and adapted to be more real-world, but we have that already.— TAnthony^Talk 16:02, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Redundant of ((Bryan Fuller)). Drovethrughosts (talk) 12:23, 2 August 2016 (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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:34, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Genealogics (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Genealogics pedigree (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused external link templates. Were previously discussed in 2008. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:25, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Question: What made them unused? Lack of a parameter for "# of generations", or were they surpassed by another template? —PC-XT+ 01:02, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The links I'm finding for the first template in the external links section aren't currently using any template, but I'm also finding use in references, so I'm thinking the templates could be used, but not sure how much —PC-XT+ 01:32, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The field for this data is in Wikidata, so no need for it here. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:01, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as unused, as I suppose infoboxes can be made to show this information if needed (if they don't already) from WikiData per User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) —PC-XT+ 00:30, 31 July 2016 (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. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:03, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:EastEnders-stub (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Listing here as a stub template with no category. This stub template is currently only used in a single article, and the editors at WP:EASTENDERS are not in the habit of writing stub articles any more (characters with little information are placed in longer lists rather than given independent stub articles), so I would suggest deleting it and replacing it with ((BBC-tv-stub)) on that one article. Note the category was deleted in January 2011. anemoneprojectors 10:19, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete like the category and replace per nom —PC-XT+ 01:04, 28 July 2016 (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 as unopposed. WP:REFUND applies. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:53, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Deletedimage (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No translcusions, doesn't seem to serve any obvious/useful purpose FASTILY 06:36, 27 July 2016 (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 as unused and unopposed. WP:REFUND applies. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:53, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:If copyright holder (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, no obvious use which couldn't (and should) be substituted by ((Di-no permission)) FASTILY 06:34, 27 July 2016 (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 relisted on 2016 August 4. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:45, 4 August 2016 (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. Eligible for WP:T2, so this is not WP:REFUNDable. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:52, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Cc-by-nc-nd-2.0-be (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

NC/ND licenses are forbidden on enwp. Probably meets criteria for WP:CSD#T2 as well FASTILY 01:07, 27 July 2016 (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).