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. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 00:28, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Cite OCLC (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No transclusions. Functionality already provided by ((Cite book)). – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:57, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 11:16, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. 65.88.88.126 (talk) 19:26, 27 April 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. (non-admin closure) ~ Rob^Talk 05:01, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Possibly unfree files subcategory starter (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:PUF has been closed. The categories were created by Hazard-Bot after DumbBOT stopped, but now both bots stopped creating the categories. 63.251.215.25 (talk) 17:00, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• If the bots have stopped creating the dated categories, then the template can be deleted. There doesn't seem to be any need to mark the template as historical or something. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:00, 26 April 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 after substitution onto Coagulopathy and Bleeding diathesis. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 16:21, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Bleeding worksheet (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I am going to boldly propose deletion of this template per WP:NOTMANUAL. I have observed this template now for several years and have several concerns.

As a reader, I have passed through stages of interest, study and knowledge of many of these areas. Yet at no stage has this template been at all relevant to pages - it is difficult to read, has no references, and I do not believe it to be either accurate nor represent the complexity of interpreting coagulation results, which are not always as simply interpreted as the table makes them seen and are complicated by disease subtypes and interacting conditions.

The table also has no inclusion criteria. That means every coagulopathic condition now has a link to eg how von Willebrand's disease and Haemophilia, which is tangentially relevant at best to those articles. The table is lengthy and does not add encyclopedic value to articles.

We are not a textbook or manual. This list should be included as a table in Coagulopathy and not transcluded in individual articles.

This template does not add to any other article which it is transcluded in. Instead it is simply "academic-looking" visual clutter that should be replaced by a single table on a single page. I look forward to comments from other editors. Tom (LT) (talk) 08:05, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment there is a TFD template on the talk page instead of the template page. -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 04:57, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, mostly because of WP:NOMEDICAL concerns. We should include the relevant diagnostic criteria on each article and possibly have this table substituted at Coagulopathy, because it's encyclopedic there. But use should be limited to where the information is clearly of encyclopedic value to minimize concerns that we're encouraging people to use this table to diagnose themselves. ~ Rob^Talk 03:42, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I have fixed the nomination per IP70. The would-be closer should consider relisting this discussion at least once due to the incorrect nomination of the template. --Izno (talk) 02:35, 22 April 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).