< December 9	December 11 >

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 debate was keep. This is currently unused in the mainspace, but consensus here is that is may be useful in the future, and it may actually be better than the alternatives. Per [1], deleting and restoring later is not a good idea. --- RockMFR 03:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:UK light rail (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template is unused, and merely duplicates the contents of Template:Britishmetros and Template:UK Tram Systems. — David Arthur (talk) 23:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment May I make a recommendation? Instead of deleting this template, we delete the other two and use this instead. Maser ^(Talk!) 02:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How come? The other templates pre-date this one (Britishmetros is three years older), and use terminology more familiar in British discourse (‘light rail’ for tram is technical jargon outside the United States). David Arthur (talk) 20:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep Event though its orphaned now, it still has the potential to be useful in the future. Unless there is some rule against orphaned templates. Mbisanz (talk) 07:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I’d say it meets both points 2 and 3 on WP:TfD. David Arthur (talk) 20:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment to Keep Like what Maser said above, I think that this template is a bit better than Template:Britishmetros and Template:UK Tram Systems. Both of these could be merged into one template because they show relativlety the same thing. As for the name Light Rail we could easily change it to Local rail transport in the United Kingdom, UK tram systems or anything else we can come up with. It doesn't matter how much history another template has, if there's a better and more productive template that doesn't just highlight metros (which is also an american saying David Arthur) or trams but showcases all and proposed systems. And also I don't belive that this template does satisfy 2 on WP:TfD as the British metros template is redundant to this better-designed/looking template; And we can easily change 3 which is The template is not used, either directly or with template substitution Pafcool2 (talk) 16:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Pafcool2 above. This template actually seems better than its two competitors linked above ('British metros' and 'UK Tram Systems') by uniting them into one slightly-nicer-looking template. It may have been seen by the nominator as a redundant template, but I would argue those other two templates are in fact redundant to this one. Terraxos (talk) 05:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I identified this template as the redundant one based on the fact that the others a) are actually used and b) have existed for significantly longer; Britishmetros was created in 2003, and has been edited by many more people, whereas UK light rail has been edited only by its creator apart from my addition of the deletion tag. David Arthur (talk) 22:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Does it really matter how long a template has been on Wikipedia and how many people have edited it. It's not a contest David Arthur, as what I am saying is that the TfD could easily be reverted. For instance I wrote this earlier: As for the name Light Rail we could easily change it to Local rail transport in the United Kingdom, UK tram systems or anything else we can come up with. It doesn't matter how much history another template has, if there's a better and more productive template that doesn't just highlight metros (which is also an american saying David) or trams but showcases all and proposed systems. And also I don't belive that this template does satisfy 2 on WP:TfD as the British metros template is redundant to this better-designed/looking template; And we can easily change 3 which is The template is not used, either directly or with template substitution. Pafcool2 (talk) 14:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If it is not used it does not need to be kept. If there is ever a need, it can be easily recovered. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:19, 18 December 2007 (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 debate was delete. Singularity 08:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rival Schools Characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Every article in it has been redirected.. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Looks orphan.--NAHID 21:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Redundant template. Maser ^(Talk!) 02:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as orphaned... SkierRMH (talk) 00:26, 12 December 2007 (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 debate was delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:MLB infobox Mets (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Also includes:
*Template:MLB infobox Astros
*Template:MLB infobox Angels
*Template:MLB infobox Mets
*Template:MLB infobox Chicago Whales
Above templates are abandoned and replaced by using Template:MLB infobox on the individual article. These templates are the last ones that link to Template:MLB infobox [2] but are abandoned. — 12 Noon 18:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as improper use of templates - Template:MLB infobox covers all bases (eww pun) already. JPG-GR (talk) 05:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as redundant (and perhaps mistakenly created in the first place). Terraxos (talk) 22:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I looked into it I believe originally they had a template for each team which recalled Template:MLB infobox, but someone then pointed out that was improper and the individual team templates began to be incorporated into the team articles. Most of the team templates were deleted through TfD, but oddly only one at a time. Anyway, this is the last of them.--12 Noon ^2¢ 23:03, 12 December 2007 (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 debate was keep. John254 04:22, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mycomorphbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete per WP:NOT#MANUAL. This infobox may do more harm than good, but that's not the main point. It is clearly intended as a guide or manual (with text such as: "As always, use discretion when consuming wild mushrooms. Read mushroom hunting and mushroom poisoning, and rely on the advice of an expert if you are new."), and as such violates Wikipedia policy. — Lampman (talk) 17:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep - First, this template's main function is to display common characteristics which by mushrooms are identified/sorted. Second, the text in question is 1) not in main namespace and 2) is not transcluded to the pages the template is included on. If it's a problem it could be removed from the template, but to put the entire template up for deletion is overkill. Finally, this template does not meet any of the four points listed at WP:NOT#MANUAL, so I believe that this is an improper listing. אמר Steve Caruso 19:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I'm biased (creator) - but I don't think you get the point of the template. It displays characteristics of mushrooms used in taxonomy and phylogenetic classification. These are also used for IDing wild mushrooms. The disclaimer-like texts can be removed. I have been opposed to them at various points anyways. And as Steve Caruso points out, it violates not a single criterion at WP:NOT#MANUAL. de Bivort 19:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep - as per preceding. Its descriptive only, there is nothing how-to about it.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Template is descriptive and encyclopedic. Maser ^(Talk!) 02:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I noticed this template up for deletion while reviewing Amanita_ocreata for GA. The template contains descriptive information about mushrooms; there's nothing how-to about it, as far as I can tell (I'm willing to listen to arguments to the contrary, though). One thing: I wish this template could be resized to the size of the taxobox above it. It would be so much sleeker that way. But a deletion seems unnecessary. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as very helpful to the article. If it needs re-phrasing, that should be taken up separately. --Czj (talk) 20:17, 13 December 2007 (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 debate was delete. Singularity 08:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:TES-organizations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Of the twelve articles in the template, there are 3 left, all of which are at AFD and are likely to follow the others. By the time you read this it may already be empty. . Judgesurreal777 (talk) 13:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Soon to be orphaned anyways. Maser ^(Talk!) 02:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete To empty to be useful Mbisanz (talk) 07:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Too small in scope now. Any items left can be combined into another TES template. Pagrashtak 16:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as too empty - merge all the TES's into one template. SkierRMH (talk) 00:25, 12 December 2007 (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 debate was delete. Singularity 08:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:TES-regions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Of the 12 articles in the template, 1 is still there, one is likely to be deleted and the other ten have been deleted, so we shouldn't have a one or two article template.. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 13:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete One article templates, people? Maser ^(Talk!) 02:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete To empty to be useful Mbisanz (talk) 07:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Too small in scope now. Any items left can be combined into another TES template. Pagrashtak 16:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and merge all of these TES's into one. SkierRMH (talk) 00:24, 12 December 2007 (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 debate was delete. Singularity 08:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:TES-races (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Only two of the four articles in the template have survived deletion, and a two article template?. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 13:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Let alone two articles, there is no point to even having a four article template. Maser ^(Talk!) 02:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete To empty to be useful Mbisanz (talk) 07:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Too small in scope now. Any items left can be combined into another TES template. Pagrashtak 16:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Just one article left now - no point in having a navigational template for it.SkierRMH (talk) 00:18, 12 December 2007 (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 debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 04:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Yorkshire county (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Single-use fork of Template:Infobox England historic county. Any fields that are unique to this template are/can be included in the original. — MRSC • Talk 07:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep, not only is the other template completely crap but Yorkshire has a very different situation to many other historic counties and thus needs more information and sections which require a different template (such as the Ridings which others don't have and places which succeeded it). If MRSC can find a way to change the "England historic county" template in a way which would encompass those things and look exactly like the Yorkshire one first then I would reconsider my position and support a merge, but at the moment the England one is amateurish and isn't good enough or an improval on this one (I tried to change the England one but it didn't really work). - Yorkshirian (talk) 08:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment problem is solved with parser functions. Flibirigit (talk) 08:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It looks a bit better now (the England one), I wasn't sure how to do what you said, because the Yorkshire one I created was derived from the general one other English counties have, the Template:Infobox England county one. - Yorkshirian (talk) 04:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This seems like a potentially useful template to me - and as Yorkshirian notes, it's arguably better than the 'Infobox England historic county' one. If nothing else, it's a harmless alternative with a little extra information. Terraxos (talk) 22:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• As this template is no longer used on any articles and Yorkshirian has removed his objections, I suggest speedy delete. MRSC • Talk 12:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no longer used, could at most be used in one article. Warofdreams talk 22:55, 16 December 2007 (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 debate was delete. Singularity 08:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Calamba City Barangay (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Red link farm. Not used anywhere. Barangays as the lowest level of local government in the Philippines most of the time doesn't get their own articles, so a navbox of full of barangays won't cut it. --Howard the Duck 03:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Even Barangay articles were deemed for deletion, definitely this one is absolutely not allowed. --βritandβeyonce ^{(talk•contribs)} 04:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete useless navigational template. SkierRMH (talk) 07:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per BritandBeyonce. Flibirigit (talk) 08:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I would prefer the Calamba City article itself gets expanded first and become a FA before even thinking of creating barangay articles/template for it. --seav (talk) 10:31, 10 December 2007 (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 debate was delete. Singularity 08:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Future airport authority (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This template is not sufficiently useful. The subheading says "It may contain information of planned airport authority".. well no kidding! Barrylb (talk) 03:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Unused and unlikely to be used. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 03:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not used & unlikely to be so. SkierRMH (talk) 07:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No practical use for this template. Maser ^(Talk!) 02:43, 11 December 2007 (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 debate was Delete per WP:SNOW --Maxim_(talk) 20:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:IHL-UHL team (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Deprecated template. Superceded by Template:Pro hockey team. — Flibirigit (talk) 01:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Deprecated template, not transcluded in any articles. Flibirigit (talk) 01:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Djsasso (talk) 01:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Kaiser matias (talk) 05:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Pparazorback (talk) 05:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete superseded. SkierRMH (talk) 07:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per nom. Malinaccier (talk) 01:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom. Maser ^(Talk!) 02:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. JPG-GR (talk) 05:58, 12 December 2007 (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 debate was Delete per WP:SNOW --Maxim_(talk) 20:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:UHL Team (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Deprecated template. Superceded by Template:Pro hockey team. — Flibirigit (talk) 01:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Deprecated template, not transcluded in any articles. Flibirigit (talk) 01:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Djsasso (talk) 01:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Kaiser matias (talk) 05:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Pparazorback (talk) 05:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as superseded. SkierRMH (talk) 07:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per nom. Malinaccier (talk) 01:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom. Maser ^(Talk!) 02:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. JPG-GR (talk) 05:58, 12 December 2007 (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 debate was Delete per WP:SNOW --Maxim_(talk) 20:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox UK Ice Hockey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Deprecated template. Superceded by Template:Pro hockey team. — Flibirigit (talk) 01:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Deprecated template, not transcluded in any articles. Flibirigit (talk) 01:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Djsasso (talk) 01:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Kaiser matias (talk) 05:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Pparazorback (talk) 05:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as superseded. SkierRMH (talk) 07:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per nom. Malinaccier (talk) 01:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom. Maser ^(Talk!) 02:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. JPG-GR (talk) 05:58, 12 December 2007 (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 debate was Delete per WP:SNOW --Maxim_(talk) 20:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox WHANHL team (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Deprecated template. Superceded by Template:NHL Team and Template:Pro hockey team. — Flibirigit (talk) 01:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Deprecated template, not transcluded in any articles. Flibirigit (talk) 01:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Djsasso (talk) 01:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Kaiser matias (talk) 05:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Pparazorback (talk) 05:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as superseded. SkierRMH (talk) 07:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per nom. Malinaccier (talk) 01:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Template has lost its purpose. Maser ^(Talk!) 02:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. JPG-GR (talk) 05:58, 12 December 2007 (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 debate was Delete per WP:SNOW --Maxim_(talk) 20:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NHL Team2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Deprecated template. Superceded by Template:NHL Team. — Flibirigit (talk) 01:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Deprecated template, not transcluded in any articles. Flibirigit (talk) 01:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Djsasso (talk) 01:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Kaiser matias (talk) 05:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Pparazorback (talk) 05:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as superseded. SkierRMH (talk) 07:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Maser ^(Talk!) 02:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. JPG-GR (talk) 05:58, 12 December 2007 (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 debate was Delete per WP:SNOW --Maxim_(talk) 20:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NHL Team Infobox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Deprecated template. Superceded by Template:NHL Team and Template:Pro hockey team. — Flibirigit (talk) 01:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Deprecated template, not transcluded in any articles. Flibirigit (talk) 01:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Djsasso (talk) 01:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Kaiser matias (talk) 05:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Pparazorback (talk) 05:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as superseded. SkierRMH (talk) 07:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom. Maser ^(Talk!) 02:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. JPG-GR (talk) 05:58, 12 December 2007 (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 debate was delete. Singularity 08:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Hellenic Navy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Obsolete, replaced by the template described at ((Infobox Ship Example)). — TomTheHand (talk) 01:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Template is still transcluded in the Greek torpedo boat Kyzikos article. Flibirigit (talk) 06:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops! I had added the new infobox, but forgot to delete the old one! It's gone now. TomTheHand (talk) 16:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Flibirigit (talk) 09:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete obsolete. –Pomte 20:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete deprecated. Maralia (talk) 22:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom; deprecated... SkierRMH (talk) 07:16, 14 December 2007 (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.