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) 05:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Maidstone United F.C. squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A Isthmian League Premier Division squad template that serves no purpose. EchetusXe 21:57, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. I count seven bluelinks in that team's squad. The navbox can therefore be considered to serve a useful purpose. --WFC-- 00:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. I agree with WFC. Argyle 4 Life^talk 16:11, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Five of those blue links were out of date.--EchetusXe 11:54, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The fact that five of seven links were out of date has to count against this. With only two left and such poor updating it serves no purpose. Alzarian16 (talk) 12:04, 22 August 2010 (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) 05:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Salisbury City F.C. squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A Southern League Premier Division squad template. EchetusXe 21:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Only four blue links including the manager so not really worth keeping. Maintainance is poor, with some players not removed until years after they leave the club. Alzarian16 (talk) 17:12, 19 August 2010 (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) 05:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:F.C. Halifax Town squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A Northern Premier League Premier Division club template. EchetusXe 21:48, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. I count six bluelinks, including the manager. The navbox can therefore be considered to serve a useful purpose. --WFC-- 00:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As an aside, although this is a borderline WP:CRYSTAL point, this is a reformed former Football League team. It is not unreasonable to assume that the number of bluelinks will either remain the same or increase in the forseeable future. --WFC-- 00:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now there are only four bluelinks.--EchetusXe 11:19, 22 August 2010 (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) 03:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Grays Athletic F.C. squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A club in Isthmian League Division One North without any notable players. EchetusXe 21:46, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: serves no purpose as a navbox. --WFC-- 00:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. One blue link, the manager, who already appears on the infinitely better Template:Grays Athletic F.C. managers. Definitely not worth keeping. Alzarian16 (talk) 17:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I've tried to keep it up to date but due to the significant drop in divisions from last season, it won't be heavily populated and is pretty useless. If there's an influx of former professionals with pages, then recreate. --Jimbo^[online] 21:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per nom. Argyle 4 Life^talk 16:13, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per nom. Joaquin008 ^(talk) 20:36, 22 August 2010 (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) 03:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bradford Park Avenue A.F.C. squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A club at Northern Premier League Premier Division level. Useless template. EchetusXe 21:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Probably not enough articles to justify a navbox, especially as none of them have been at the club for long. --WFC-- 00:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: would have been useful about 40 years ago, when the club was in the Football League. However, times change and the non-league status of the team today means there is no need for this navbox. BigDom 06:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per nom. Argyle 4 Life^talk 16:14, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Joaquin008 ^(talk) 20:30, 22 August 2010 (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) 04:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Blyth Spartans A.F.C. squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only links three articles and I'm not sure whether either of them are still at the club. EchetusXe 21:38, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I think you may have added the wrong comment to the wrong nomination; I count seven players plus the manager. --WFC-- 00:23, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes but the template is only on three of those articles. Presumably because those editing the articles assume that a Blyth Spartans A.F.C. squad template would not exist.--EchetusXe 00:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't quite understand how TfD works; does a bot do cleanup afterwards? I'm willing to add links where I have argued keep if a bot would do the cleanup should they be deleted, but don't want to run the risk of merely adding a load of redlinks to articles. --WFC-- 01:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • My opinion is that the main criteria for judging navboxes is the number of links, and whether or not the navbox itself is reasonably well maintained. This passes those barometers for me. My opinion is to see how this run of TfDs goes; if the final judgement is that a few of them are worthwhile provided there is a willingness to maintain them, I'd be happy to take on a share of that work. I know this is an oxymoron, but if that's how this goes, it might need a bit of organisation at WT:FOOTY. --WFC-- 01:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

      In response to your first question, yes, a bot should perform the clean up, if the template is placed in the holding cell before deletion. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

      • Thanks Plastikspork. I've done the cleanup, and would speculate that the lack of the redirect ((Blyth Spartans F.C. squad)) may have counted against this template in the past. I'll be happy to update this every September and February for as long as it's a worthwhile navbox. Regards, --WFC-- 03:18, 20 August 2010 (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. Non-admin closure by :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 19:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Dover Athletic F.C. squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

See below. EchetusXe 21:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Very poorly maintained (to the extent that that might justify deletion), but there are eight players and a manager that should be linked from this; if used properly this would be a useful navbox. --WFC-- 00:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up, this is inconsistent with what I have argued elsewhere, but given that the club is an FA, I'm assuming that the will is there somewhere. --WFC-- 00:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template is now bang up-to-date, still contains nine bluelinks -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This one is reasonable as it links a fair number of articles. The recent updating gives this a purpose. Alzarian16 (talk) 14:07, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Plenty of people included with articles. Argyle 4 Life^talk 16:15, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Alzarian16 and Argyle 4 Life. Joaquin008 ^(talk) 20:28, 22 August 2010 (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) 20:47, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Dover Athletic F.C squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Conference North club. EchetusXe 21:34, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Very poorly maintained (to the extent that that might justify deletion), but there are eight players and a manager that should be linked from this; if used properly this would be a useful navbox. --WFC-- 00:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• You put keep to the wrong one, this is the 'F.C' one rather than the correct form 'F.C.'--EchetusXe 00:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Correcting now. Took me a while to realise why there were two! --WFC-- 00:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • You need to withdraw your keep vote for this template still. I guess I should have put a speedy request in anyway seen as it is the incorrect spelling of a pre-existing template.--EchetusXe 16:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Incorrect name, not maintained and superseded by the correctly named one. Alzarian16 (talk) 17:29, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - orphaned and superceded by template with correct name

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) 04:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Nantwich Town F.C. squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

[[Northern Premier League Premier Division]] club, no useful purpose whatsoever. EchetusXe 21:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The article suggests that eight people (plus the club) should be included in this navbox. If no-one can be bothered it should probably be deleted anyway, but if someone wants to do the work I would !vote keep. --WFC-- 00:51, 17 August 2010 (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) 03:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sutton United F.C. squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This Isthmian League Premier Division club template only links two articles. EchetusXe 21:18, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not enough players to make a navbox remotely useful. --WFC-- 00:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per nom. Argyle 4 Life^talk 16:17, 18 August 2010 (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) 03:10, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Stafford Rangers F.C. squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I'm the only one who keeps this thing updated and I wouldn't have bothered if I knew that it should have been deleted. Only links a few articles, and one of those is a loan player who will leave the club in a few weeks. EchetusXe 21:16, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete only four links, one of which is a loanee, and the nom is the primary contributor. --WFC-- 00:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per nom. Argyle 4 Life^talk 16:18, 18 August 2010 (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) 03:08, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:St Albans City F.C. squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Is only included on one article and I'm not sure if he still plays for them. Poorly maintained, out of date, club not competing in a national or professional league etc etc EchetusXe 21:11, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete without prejudice to recreation. Out of date, and the four links it should have doesn't warrant a navbox. However, if that situation changes (a couple more notable players join) I would be happy to maintain this one. --WFC-- 00:46, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: but like WFC above, no prejudice against recreation. I actually created this one while the club was in the Conference National and had several notable players on their books. Unfortunately they got relegated that season and now here we are. BigDom 06:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per nom. Argyle 4 Life^talk 16:19, 18 August 2010 (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) 04:49, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Northwich Victoria F.C. squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Seems to be one of the better maintained of its kind, but club is now in the Northern Premier League Premier Division and a squad template is overkill and unnecessary. EchetusXe 21:07, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I would normally sit on the fence for a template with precisely five links, but this one is well maintained and accurately used. Marginal case, but I think it might be worth sparing this based on the quality of most of the articles this links to. --WFC-- 00:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Borderline, but it appears to be updated regularly and contains links to maintained articles. Argyle 4 Life^talk 16:22, 18 August 2010 (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) 03:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Lewes F.C. squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

More than a year out of date, the club doesn't play in the national league, it is only included on one article and I'm not even sure that player is still at the club.EchetusXe 20:57, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, poorly maintained, and it is difficult to justify a navbox for four bluelinks. --WFC-- 00:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per nom. Argyle 4 Life^talk 16:25, 18 August 2010 (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) 04:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Halesowen Town F.C. squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Clubs of this level should not have squad templates and the template's history illuminates why this is the case. Has not been updated since December 2009, links few or no articles, and seems to be mostly inaccurate. Extremely difficult to keep this template up to date unless one is familiar with the obscure club.EchetusXe 20:51, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Leaning towards delete, theoretically useful, but exceptionally poorly maintained. --WFC-- 00:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If it isn't going to be maintained then there isn't much point in keeping it. Argyle 4 Life^talk 16:27, 18 August 2010 (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) 20:45, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Banbury United F.C. squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template not updated since October 2008, no longer links to any articles and is well out of date. Few clubs of that evel have such a template and those that do do not realistically warrant one.EchetusXe 20:43, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete serves no purpose as a navbox. --WFC-- 00:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete lacks links so it doesn't actually help anybody as a navbox, likely to be out of date and likely to remain that way if nobody realises it's there. bobrayner (talk) 14:00, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per nom. Argyle 4 Life^talk 16:27, 18 August 2010 (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) 03:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Weymouth F.C. squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Another squad navbox with only one blue link, hence the template serves no useful purpose as it doesn't link any articles. BigDom 09:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. per nom.--EchetusXe 10:16, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete serves no purpose as a navbox. --WFC-- 00:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per nom. Its a shame to see Weymouth in such a state. Argyle 4 Life^talk 16:29, 18 August 2010 (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) 03:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Atherstone Town F.C. Squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Squad navbox for a club at Level 8 of the English football league system. Only used on one blue link, hence the template is not useful and is not likely to become any more useful in the future. BigDom 08:16, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. per nom.--EchetusXe 10:16, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete serves no purpose as a navbox. --WFC-- 00:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per nom. Argyle 4 Life^talk 16:30, 18 August 2010 (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) 20:45, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Vauxhall Motors F.C. squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Squad navbox that has not been updated since 2007, and now the only two blue-linked players have left the club. The current squad contains no notable players, so the template has no use. BigDom 08:13, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. per nom.--EchetusXe 10:16, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete serves no purpose as a navbox. --WFC-- 00:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per nom. Argyle 4 Life^talk 16:30, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per nom. Joaquin008 ^(talk) 20:34, 22 August 2010 (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) 23:53, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:King's Lynn F.C. squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The club is defunct hence they have no squad, so there is no longer any use for this navbox. BigDom 06:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. per nom.--EchetusXe 10:16, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I created it, but in fairness I can't argue. No team anymore. Jonesy702 (talk) 16:52, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as there is no possible use for it. --WFC-- 00:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per nom. Argyle 4 Life^talk 16:31, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per nom. Joaquin008 ^(talk) 20:34, 22 August 2010 (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) 20:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Class parameter (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Deprecated for months, apparently unused (although it is suggested to be substituted.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:01, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It appaears to be for helping to create a project banner from scratch, specifically the assessment part of it. I don't think many people would have used this even before WPBannerMeta existed as they would have just found another banner and copied the code from there. And now with WPBannerMeta, there's even less of a need for it. -- WOSlinker (talk) 15:52, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per both of the above. Airplaneman ✈ 19:14, 19 August 2010 (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) 19:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Non-free unsure (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Deprecated, unused —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:43, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This template is continuously used despite the red warning text indicating that it is depreciated. Delete to avoid unnecessary confusion. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:53, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as deprecated and unused to avoid confusion. Airplaneman ✈ 19:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete to prevent constant use of deprecated template. [Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 20:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I made this template long, long ago, back when it made sense. I thought it had already been deleted. I doubt its continued existence would do more good than harm. – Quadell ^(talk) 01:02, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Yep, agreed, no useful purpose and detrimental through confusion. Chzz  ►  08:50, 23 August 2010 (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.