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 speedy delete as test page Magioladitis (talk) 16:10, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Top tabs (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unencyclopedic template with no foreseeable use. Likely a test project by creator (author's last edit was to the template on November 9, 2008). –blurpeace ^(talk) 23:23, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per nom, seems to be a test edit. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:00, 29 July 2009 (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. This could speedy delete it. No reason to bring in TfD. Magioladitis (talk) 10:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Tt1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Old test template. Redundant to Template:X1 and unnecessary. Ricky81682 (talk) 23:09, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete — no need. Cheers, Jack Merridew 04:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to ((X1)) 76.66.192.64 (talk) 05:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom, redundant. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:00, 29 July 2009 (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. JPG-GR (talk) 04:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:32stories (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I'm not really sure what it's supposed to do but it's not being used and doesn't seem like it's useful. Ricky81682 (talk) 23:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok, it's just being used at 1632 writers to organize the tables of what books and essays and online fictions and whatever the writers did. The code is so complicated because it uses its own internal syntax for the parameters. Could be entirely replaced with a few lines of text and regular wikilinks. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• delete — The *purpose* of this template is to confound clean-up efforts. By making the implementation of the article so non-wiki, it serves to cement this franchise-spam into Wikipedia; it's been here for about two years, has helped sell a bunch of books, and is long overdue for a heavy cull. Cheers, Jack Merridew 04:27, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Totally unnecessary and appears to exist to hard code content into articles. Nick-D (talk) 11:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per justification given in "Template:1632Count series total inprint", (July 24 noms) and per not having walled gardens of unmaintainable content that really belongs somewhere more fannish. ++Lar: t/c 18:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom, inappropriate use of template space. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like someone to susbtitue in the only article is used before deleting it, please -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:08, 2 August 2009 (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 speedy delete as orphaned and per recent discussions on the plentiful 1632-related templates. JPG-GR (talk) 05:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:1632width (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I think we can live with just typing out 200px. With this it's now orphaned. Ricky81682 (talk) 22:55, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Missed one more. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:58, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• delete as inappropriate. Cheers, Jack Merridew 04:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Pointless and inappropriate Nick-D (talk) 11:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per justification given just above. ++Lar: t/c 18:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom, inappropriate use of template space. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:01, 29 July 2009 (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 Magioladitis (talk) 16:06, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Free FM Radio stations (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Defunct WP:NAVBOX with no items since December 2008. May even meet WP:CSD#T3. Closeapple (talk) 10:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per my own nomination. The last Free FM branded station was 97.1 KLSX Los Angeles, which dropped the name in October 2008. Navbox was cleared out in December. Last talk station from Free FM days was 106.7 WJFK-FM Manassas, Virginia, which changed to a sports format in the middle of July 2009. May even be WP:CSD#T3 as a non-useful template that substantially duplicates other templates (like Template:Sporting News Radio stations), since this template is layed out exactly the same, not containing any special formatting worth saving. --Closeapple (talk) 10:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Template is no longer needed. RobDe68 (talk) 13:44, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - As above, It's not needed anymore, Pointless keeping it. Harlem675 17:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom, no longer needed. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as it's no longer required, no longer an aid to navigation, cannot plausibly be used on more than one article, and can easily be recreated if CBS ever loses its mind again. - Dravecky (talk) 00:47, 31 July 2009 (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. JPG-GR (talk) 04:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Joey + Rory (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I think it's a little early for a template. Only one album, two singles, one indivudually notable member, all sufficiently interlinked. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 02:20, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I figure that there's enough there... including 2 record labels, and Can You Duet but of course I expect it will continue to grow CloversMallRat (talk) 06:12, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Eh, keep, 6 major links, it's (barely) passably useful to centralize all their stuff in a template rather than hunting through the articles for the links. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:03, 29 July 2009 (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 Magioladitis (talk) 16:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ivy Tech Community College (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template does not link to other articles directly related to the school, rather, it just links to the cities the school is located in; this template does not provide an added resource that the main article does not. 13² 01:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless there is a chance that Ivy Tech has several other subjects notable enough for their own articles, which is doubtful. Remove simple city names in any case. --Closeapple (talk) 23:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NAV. City articles are not directly related to Ivy Tech. - Masonpatriot (talk) 18:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom, not useful. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:04, 29 July 2009 (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.