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 debate was delete. Spebi 08:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Lat icon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Unneeded as we already have Template:Lv icon. — ... discospinster _talk 21:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I say Delete. Two One Six Five Five (talk) 22:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as redundant... SkierRMH (talk) 06:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to the existing template. The prefix is not intuitive and there is no harm in maintaining an easy-to-remember redirect. --- RockMFR 06:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Don't redirected templates increase page loading time? If so, delete; if not, redirect. Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 05:11, 8 December 2007 (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 debate was delete. Spebi 08:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Little Rock area shopping centers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hardly a useful template, contains almost no blue links. Most of the red links are to strip malls that wouldn't ever be notable enough for their own pages. (Note: Twinkle wouldn't list this since it "couldn't find the target page", whatever that means -- the !%@#$ target page is right here!) — Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 14:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Absolutely Delete for reasons given in nom. Not even close.--CastAStone|^(talk) 15:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, could always be recreated when/if more notable/relevant articles are created on the project. Cirt (talk) 15:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete per nom. JPG-GR (talk) 19:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination DavidJ710| talk 20:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as useless (at this point) navigational template. SkierRMH (talk) 06:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Uneeded at the moment. Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 01:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep a better solution would be to simply remove the redlinks and add them back as necessary. --The_stuart (talk) 03:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a source for AfD articles. We don't need a template to add more work at AfD! Vegaswikian (talk) 01:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As stated above, all the links will stay blue because none of the subject matter is notable. Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 05:11, 8 December 2007 (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 debate was no consensus, thus, the template is kept. Spebi 08:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:ArbcomDeletedpage (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Redundant when WP:PT is around. — Stifle (talk) 12:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Not redundant. It serves a different purpose. Cascading protection is only useful for protecting red links. Actively deleted pages. But there are times when arbcom wants to have a page's history publically visible for the duration of a case, but not have the page itself active. The only way to accomplish this is to replace the page with... something... and protect the replaced page. Then anyone who needs to dig through the page's history for the case can do so, but the main article itself does not show the contentious material. This function is a lot like the old ((deletedpage)), and cannot be performed by cascading protection, and thus cannot be performed by WP:PT. - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Prior keep explanation sounds reasonable to me. Cirt (talk) 13:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete Keep - for most deleted pages the history is meant to be killed off. However for Arbcom deleted pages the history has to be kept accessible to all. We could delete this template and have the AC just blank and protect those pages, but that'd bring us back to the Dark Ages when sysops used to ((subst:MediaWiki:Noarticletext)) to avoid having the Special:Shortpages patrollers complain about useless 0-byte pages... Pegasus «C¦T» 15:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Is this really used in cases where the history is still intact? All the current uses are in cases where the history is gone. Well, no matter. This functionality could technically be added into the two MediaWiki interface pages for cascade protection if we really wanted the redlinks to show up and still have an arbcom "warning", but that seems like more trouble than it's worth. --- RockMFR 19:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I created this page because, at the time of the removal of ((deletedpage)), there were five articles or so in the mentioned state placed there for use on an arbcom case. It was some sort of "allegations of apartheid" case, and the five pages were preserved for use in the case. That case is now closed, and the five articles have, I beleive, been re-deleted. Is this situation in any way common? I have no idea. But it was definitely done once, and if this is deleted, then if the situation is needed again, something will need to be done with the articles under review, even if it's just a bunch of empty comments to keep it off of the Shortpages reports. - TexasAndroid (talk) 20:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, link to the relevant pages from a subpage of the (single) relevant ArbCom case, and cascade-protect that. Or that would be a more elegant solution, if you ask me. >Radiant< 23:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per TexasAndroid. Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 05:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete TexasAndroid's intentions were good but the message is not needed. The articles in question were undeleted by me as a history-only undeletion so they could be reviewed as evidence. They were previously deleted by AfD and that is what is should have happened to them when the case was over. ArbCom never makes content decisions and I can only recall one or two cases (like Brian P) where a decision "from on high" (whoever that may be) was made to not have an article. Presumable the Allegations of... articles could be recreated assuming the rules were followed like any other article deleted at AfD. No need for this template. Thatcher131 02:01, 12 December 2007 (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 debate was delete. Spebi 08:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Tom Cruise (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete.Very few people have gotten their own templates, and I don't see why Tom Cruise should have one. In addition, the pages linked are of only minor relevance to Cruise - things that are only tangentially related to him are misconstrued to be "part of his subject". His article contains all the pertinent info, this is redundant and strange. - Werideatdusk33 (talk) 10:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Actually, most of the articles in the box are very relevant to Cruise and to each other, and as you say the connections are explained in the Cruise article. The box is not redundant, but instead is a useful navigational tool for readers and editors. It is placed at the bottom of articles and set to display as collapsed, so as to be unobtrusive. Cirt (talk) 10:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete. All connections in these articles can/should be made through the Tom Cruise page. A template such as this would be more useful for a subject without such a central binding point. DavidJ710| talk 20:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A bit overdoing it, as you could fit all the info contained there into the article itself. Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 05:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• By all means KEEP! It is very important to the article and a good link for information -- the whole fact that Chad Slater/Kyle Bradford is Notable is that he had the Tom Cruise connection! Rednath (talk) 07:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all things said above. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 16:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a loose collection that is not a coherent series of articles on or under one subject. This is the concept of linking in article text, not templates. –Pomte 20:18, 11 December 2007 (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 debate was delete. Spebi 08:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:African-American oscar winners (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete attacking page with African-Americans — Choss23 (talk) 08:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as inappropriate categorization for a template. JPG-GR (talk) 19:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Politically incorrect, anyone? Inappropriately categorized. Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 05:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 23:38, 8 December 2007 (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 page.

The result of the debate was speedily deleted G7 by User:MZMcBride. --ais523 10:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Template:Ifexist (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This template is not used anywhere, and it uses the #ifexist parser function, which is being limited due to its strain on the servers. Since it is not currently used and its use should be discouraged because of the 100-call limit on #ifexist functions (to be implemented soon), I recommend this template be deleted. See WP:VPT#.23ifexist limit for the discussion on this limit. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 03:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom - esp. in light of 100-call limit upcoming. SkierRMH (talk) 03:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: Template was deleted by its original author and only editor after being notified of this. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 04:00, 5 December 2007 (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.