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) 19:28, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sengoku Basara website (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

not a template ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 18:35, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not template with no redeeming informationCurb Chain (talk) 01:42, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. mabdul 18:14, 2 June 2011 (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) 19:28, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

not a template ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 18:33, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not template with no redeeming informationCurb Chain (talk) 01:44, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. mabdul 18:15, 2 June 2011 (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) 19:27, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rubberband (band) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Non-notable band, has only had one single - "working on debut album", "Related articles" aren't about the band (and would go in 'See also' sections anyway, not a template) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:17, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The article inquestion is now deleted.Curb Chain (talk) 01:38, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If teh article has been deleted, this is a case of WP:SNOW, and should end. History2007 (talk) 06:15, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete. mabdul 18:17, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: page was deleted per A7 --> WP:SNOW mabdul 11:38, 6 June 2011 (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) 07:09, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

WP:NENAN, links only four articles. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 21:43, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It links five articles not 4, the template is fine.--TheMovieBuff (talk) 16:45, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:07, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Even if it doesn't violate the rule of WP:NENAN, it violates the spirit. A simple list of wikilinks in "See also" section would do the job much better. No such user (talk) 14:08, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, the articles are well connected. Frietjes (talk) 23:42, 8 June 2011 (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) 07:08, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template doesn't actually seem to do anything, and as such serves no real purpose. doomgaze (talk) 02:13, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I think it's used for censoring words, if I'm reading the template code and interpreting it right. Instead of strikethrough, this template takes a parameter to display "-" for the number of specified characters. 65.94.44.141 (talk) 04:17, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete if used in article, it would fall afoul of WP:NOTCENSORED. If used on discussion pages, it would seem redundant with strikethrough, and would involve actually removing content. 65.94.44.141 (talk) 04:19, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, looks like I didn't do my homework. 65.94.44.141 is indeed correct, when used with a pipe and a number it does create a sort-of censored look. The only possible use I can think of would be to remove, say, email adresses posted on the help desk. 00:53, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
• Delete per IP, totally useless even at the helpdesk: The mailaddress (in this case) would be visible in the source code and normally there are better templates in use for saying that personal information was removed. mabdul 11:35, 6 June 2011 (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.