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 delete. —Doug Bell ^talk 21:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redundant to Template:NowCommons and totally outdated - no edits in more than a year. Previous TfD can be seen on the talk page, but the reasons to keep were not convincing even then. They are even less convincing more than a year later. --Flyingtoaster1337 23:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, not much else to say. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 04:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There is already a template which tells viewers that the Image is beng considered in accordance with wikipedia's deletion policy, if people want more information on why then they could visit WP:IFD and voice opinion there.Tellyaddict^{Editor review!} 16:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per. ^{Khukri -} 22:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. no-brainer. —Moondyne 07:52, 8 February 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 page.

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 result. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Metalocalypse episode (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete Parent template ((Infobox Television episode)) can easily replace with more options included, and not actually used anywhere. --Jay32183 22:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete/Comment A further discussion on the matter is going on at the talkpage for the television wikiproject. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 04:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There are many templates for TV programs, to be honest I can't understand how this one is different.Tellyaddict^{Editor review!} 16:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • For one, there are no articles on individual episodes of Metalocalypse. Also this infobox doesn't add anything that the general infobox doesn't have, in fact, it actually offers less. The WikiProject is attempting to consolidate the infoboxes. Jay32183 19:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unused and redundant by ((Infobox Television episode)). —Moondyne 07:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as it would actually be detrimental to the purposes of any newbie who picked it up instead of ((infobox television episode)). — coelacan talk — 02:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, redundant and less options then the standard infobox ((Infobox Television episode)) TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 19:57, 14 February 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 page.

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 Delete ~ Arjun 00:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Pasadena, Texas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete Single use template...same reasons as below (Infobox Shreveport). --MJCdetroit 20:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Orphaned template and as mentioned above by another user there is another template similar.Tellyaddict^{Editor review!} 16:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per nom. - grubber 17:19, 8 February 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 page.

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 delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Shreveport (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete. Single use template version of Infobox City that placed outside of the article. Substituted infobox with the standard Infobox City inside article. --MJCdetroit 18:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, obviously ST47Talk 19:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A single use template seems to be a total contradiction of itself, no? After all, templates are made so the same thing can be utilized in many different places. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 04:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per comments made by Ikiroid and generally not relevant enough to keep.Tellyaddict^{Editor review!} 16:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. - grubber 17:20, 8 February 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 page.

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 delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD-CrownCopyright (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I'm not certain that this is a TfD job, but I'm sure I'll be corrected if it's not ;)
This template is a legally inaccurate version of Template:CrownCopyright. Not helpful, and no longer in use, either. - mholland 09:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It's patently incorrect. Chris cheese whine 13:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, although it would be nice. -Amark moo! 14:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If info is in the public domain then it will be referenced appropriately, theres no need for a big template to stuck across the article/image.Tellyaddict^{Editor review!} 16:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete quickly before someone uses it and gets wikipedia in a lawsuit! Well, probably not, but it is a bit scary to see a misunderstanding of copyright laws in the form of a template. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 04:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as incorrect copyright template. Flyingtoaster1337 05:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete an unhelpful contribution to a confusing enough corner of Wikipedia. —Moondyne 07:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per User:Ikiroid above I have inserted a redirect to NLD to prevent it being misused, the text should be visible below the redirect. 68.39.174.238 22:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um... okay. That's an unusual use for Template:NLD. Do the Dutch Royal Family often put things in the public domain? I think the public should be told :) — mholland 02:14, 10 February 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 page.

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 no consensus. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Croatia Squad 1996 European Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete. Same as discussed: Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_November_21#Template:Turkey Squad Euro 2000 and Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_November_13#Template:England Squad Euro 2004. Chanheigeorge 00:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Generally a good template.Tellyaddict^{Editor review!} 16:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per precedent - "A good template" is not a reason to keep. ST47Talk 19:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• "Per precident" is no reason to delete, since wp:consensus can change. Neutral. — coelacan talk — 02:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Past National teams templates are useful. There is no serious reason to delete them.--KaragouniS 19:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Having European Championship templates is making things too cramped. -- Mattythewhite 12:41, 14 February 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 page.