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 all. —fetch·comms 02:35, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:American Christians (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Muslim American (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is an enormous infobox with no fewer than 32 images, which adds no fewer than 36 references to the one article it was being used in (viz. Christianity in the United States). It's not even appropriate as an infobox, as it's an infobox intended for use with ethnic groups, and American Christians aren't an ethnic group. There's a commented-out note at the top of the template acknowledging that fact, but it doesn't really mitigate the fact that the infobox is inappropriate. Other countries' "Christianity in Foo" articles don't have or need such infoboxes implying that Christians in their country are an ethnic group and only silently admitting they aren't. Apart from the overwhelming number of images (necessitating an overwhelming number of references since for every pic you have to have a ref or two verifying that the person is/was indeed a Christian), the infobox doesn't really contain much useful info: the population and percentage of Christians in the U.S. (info already in the article), the fact that Christians are spread across the country but especially prominent in the Bible Belt, and the wholly unsurprising information that American Christians speak all the same languages as Americans in general do. This template is thus overwhelming in size, inappropriate in implication, and unuseful in information. +Angr 23:43, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The rationales for deletion are well covered. I just can't see where this would be useful. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 04:20, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• What about the Template:Muslim American? --Bonga3 (talk) 18:22, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - these templates are meant for ethnic groups, not religious ones (although I appreciate there isn't always a clear distinction). The real problem with this template is the sheer size of it, which combined with the relative lack of information it contains, makes it fairly useless. It might be acceptable if it was much smaller (say, only containing 8 images instead of 32), but as it is it's not worth the space it takes up. Robofish (talk) 00:11, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• If the template had been created using an infobox for religious subpopulations, would that affect its propriety? Just trying to understand the issues. Now, procedurally: I've added Template:Muslim American, because I cannot determine a reason to be inconsistent. Because of this, I also recommend extending the duration of this discussion. I've also restored the template to the article until the discussion is resolved. There's no consensus to remove it from the article yet; that's exactly what this discussion is for. Keeping it in the article produces a notice above the template that it is being discussed here. Without that notice, contributors to the article have no other readily visible notice that the template is being discussed here. --Bsherr (talk) 17:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• In addition to my nomination of ((American Christians)), I also would like us to delete the newly added ((Muslim American)) for the same reasons. +Angr 06:31, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both, these templates simply aren't useful as templates. Good point, especially, about the references; we don't need to clog up an article's references section with a list of references justifying the inclusion of some faces in a box. Nyttend (talk) 02:36, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete ((American Christians)); it is not useful and would never be NPOV. ^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ} 10:37, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete These are unwieldy and not particularly useful. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:41, 21 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) 07:02, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Few related articles to warrant a navbox for this band: the main article, a single album, and a tv show that one of its songs was used. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 21:21, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete — The discography link goes to the main article. -— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 04:22, 14 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. (I feel like such a rebel!) JPG-GR (talk) 07:01, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Do not delete (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template was designed to alert administrators not to delete certain user pages in a category designed to alert administrators to user pages that could be deleted at will. But, that category was recently deleted in a CfD. Therefore, this template no longer serves any purpose. Now, in a final bit of irony, I propose that Template:Do not delete be deleted. Bsherr (talk) 15:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as obsolete. Airplaneman ✈ 16:02, 13 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. —fetch·comms 02:37, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Benjamin Zephaniah (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

There's only one link that links to a notable entry. Transcluded on only one (two?) page. Can easily be recreated if more articles are written. –Schmloof (talk · contribs) 07:58, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Only used on one page (Benjamin Zephaniah). Airplaneman ✈ 16:05, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — The one link to Too Black, Too Strong is a dab page which needs a lot of work. -— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 04:24, 14 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. —fetch·comms 02:38, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Fb team TBD (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Fb team TBA (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Do we really need a template whose only output is TBD, a disambiguation page? Is it that hard to type "to be determined"? Basically redundant to ((Fb team)), anyway. –Schmloof (talk · contribs) 01:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Also, it links to a disambiguation page. Airplaneman ✈ 03:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I would support the deletion. When I first saw this link in a football competition standings table, which was before I was aware of how the table was formatted, I assumed someone had inserted an otiose link to a word irrelevant to the context, and clicked on the edit button with the intention of removing it. A plain unlinked "TBD"/"TBA" text seems quite enough. --Theurgist (talk) 23:25, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I have no idea why this template was created because the only thing you need to type to produce the same results is [[TBD]] or [[TBA]] WilliamF1two (talk) 21:31, 15 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. —fetch·comms 03:12, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Districts of Balochistan (Pakistan) Map (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only ever used in one article (Balochistan, Pakistan) and does nothing that cannot be done in that article itself. Green Giant (talk) 00:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - this is out of date (according to Balochistan,_Pakistan#Government and List_of_Districts_in_Balochistan_(Pakistan)#Balochistan) and is now orphaned. Airplaneman ✈ 16:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete orphaned WilliamF1two (talk) 21:33, 15 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.