- 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 relisted on 2020 April 29. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:13, 29 April 2020 (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).
Template:The Garden
- 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:59, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Too little content. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:41, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:34, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I agree, looks like it's too soon. --Bsherr (talk) 20:25, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not enough links....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:30, 28 April 2020 (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).
Template:USAF Electronic Security Command
- 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:00, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deleting This template is outdated, largely not useful, and a duplicate of Template:United States Air Force intelligence units. The Electronic Security Command no longer exists and hasn't since 1991, nor do any of the units that were under its command and listed in this template. Every link is a redirect to the modern equivalent of the unit, so its use as navigation is extremely limited. Updating this template would make it essentially a duplicate of the USAF intel units template. Furthermore, all pages (all two of them) that use this template also use the intel units template. Koanium (talk) 01:12, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:16, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom. Template is small and does not serve a navigational purpose --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:34, 22 April 2020 (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 no consensus. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:59, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not enough links. Only link to one team article. The rest are redirects. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:47, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:47, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Would be erring on the side of keep if more teams had individual articles. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:34, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, I've added more topics including the 2006 documentary, the league, the national team, and the Ashbourne Baseball Club. The template now has an adequate and growing list of links, and the game of baseball has taken hold in Ireland and is expanding its presence. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:41, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep per Randy Kryn. It bothers me a bit that a few of these links are just redirects, but there is enough content there to be useful now.--Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 05:31, 24 April 2020 (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 merge to Template:Simpsons albums. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:00, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Template:Simpsons singles with Template:Simpsons albums.
Would be better to have all music-related links in the same template. Makes easier to navigate between related articles and also reduces redundancy on articles where both templates are present. Gonnym (talk) 14:40, 21 April 2020 (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).
Template:Brewers of wheat beer
- 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) Mdaniels5757 (talk) 20:31, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unnecessary navbox based upon "breweries whose main output is wheat beer". A group of producers who mainly make a particular product is arbitrary and not a coherent subject. There's no wheat beer brewery article and the articles listed do not refer to each other. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 09:36, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. I do not think this information should be stored as a template. I'm not even sure if it should be stored in categories. It should probably be stored on a list off Wikipedia.--Tom (LT) (talk) 08:34, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Not to mention the fact that there are hundreds of wheat beer brewers in Canada and the US.--Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 01:53, 24 April 2020 (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).
Template:People's Party of Canada MPs
- 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) Mdaniels5757 (talk) 20:34, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unused template, the party doesn't have representation in parliament. If they win seats in the next election, this template can be re-created. Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 05:52, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, there are no longer any MPs in the House with a PPC affiliation. RA0808 talkcontribs 17:20, 23 April 2020 (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).
Template:CCF MPs
- 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) Mdaniels5757 (talk) 21:01, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unused template, and very unlikely to be used in the future as the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation is defunct and the name was only revived for a couple of years after a politician was kicked out of the New Democratic Party's caucus. Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 05:35, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, there are no longer any MPs in the HoC with a CCF affiliation. RA0808 talkcontribs 17:20, 23 April 2020 (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).
Template:Uw-copyright-org
- 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) Mdaniels5757 (talk) 00:08, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Underused template that is overly specific (for copyvio articles about organizations) and likely redundant to ((uw-copyright)). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:10, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This was created because copyvios about organizations is very common. Furthermore, it was meant to be really dumbed down since many of these articles are created out of good faith. The original version became the more verbose version you see today, that indeed shares a lot of the same wording as ((uw-copyright)). I believe I got the idea for this template from User:Diannaa. She may or may not be using it. Frankly I don't work much in this area anymore, so I won't be hurt if it's deleted/redirected. — MusikAnimal talk 03:41, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I haven't used this template recently either.— Diannaa (talk) 11:55, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Looks like enough of the message is similar. --Bsherr (talk) 20:23, 26 April 2020 (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 relisted on 2020 April 29. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:14, 29 April 2020 (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 relisted on 2020 April 29. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:13, 29 April 2020 (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).
Template:Uw-crystal-album
- 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:23, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Underused, overly specific user warning redundant to ((uw-crystal)). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:58, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- No objection; seems redundant these days. Stifle (talk) 11:32, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Looks like a redundancy to me too. --Bsherr (talk) 20:23, 26 April 2020 (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).
Template:Uw-copyright-img2
- 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:02, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Inferior duplicate of ((Uw-nonfree)). Needs to specify that it's not just any kind of copyrighted material, but non-free content incompatible with Wikipedia's licenses. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:35, 21 April 2020 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:23, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not needed as it has been merged into the Template:Azerbaijan national football team. HawkAussie (talk) 01:11, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 11:47, 21 April 2020 (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).