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 G8 Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, hasn't been touched for over three years. This was a collaboration of the month template for WikiProject Korean counties and cities, which was long ago merged into WP:KOREA. Obsolete and of no historical value. PC78 (talk) 15:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• G8 Essentially dependent on a nonexistant parent. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:27, 10 January 2009 (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) 03:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Top ten supermodels (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template doesn't seem like appropriate encyclopedic content. Where is it sourced from? I'm guessing it's from some fashion magazine (if not totally made up), but it's not as if there's an objective ranking as to which supermodels are "top" (except possibly by salary). Regardless, such a thing would be changing constantly, and seems more like time-sensitive trivia than proper encyclopedic content. And lastly, this template would just be a bitch to maintain. How often do you change the rankings as they are updated? And each time that happens, the template needs to be added to all of those articles of models who've been added to the list, and removed from those who've been deleted. I just see this quickly becoming out of date. --Cyde Weys 15:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The rankings might come from Models.com, as they occasionally put out such lists, but the template has no encyclopedic value and rankings don't seem to reflect anything definite.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 16:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Everchanging. No encyclopedic value. ----Ðysepsion † ^{Speak your mind} 17:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because who cares, most supermodels look like Barbie dolls anyway not a defining term for any of the models, ever-changing list, dubious. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Probable copyvio of that site's information and it can't stay accurate without continual updating. Nate • (chatter) 09:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Can't see any encyclopedic value whatsoever. And the reasons for which a model is qualified to be included in those rankings are totally dubious, as are the people selecting the models. Pure informational junk. --Catgut (talk) 12:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, biased POV filled template. ViperSnake151 14:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless pictures are added to the template, in which case, keep, keep, mille fois keep. 69.212.65.182 (talk) 19:07, 12 January 2009 (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) 03:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:1960aflwest (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned template. Already transcluded at 1960_AFL_season#Standings_.5B1.5D. In fact, the template was never used as the information was just inserted. Ricky81682 (talk) 09:52, 10 January 2009 (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) 03:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Legneds of the Hidden Temple Episode (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused for 18 months and unlikely to ever be used (per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Galileo's Cannonball) RJaguar3 | u | t 06:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No hope of being used. Do you really think there's ever hope of an article being made on an episode of a game show?! Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The cruftiest of all Nickcruft, the spelling is wrong, and the title is long-winded. Nate • (chatter) 09:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete More cruft...and spelling errors. User:MrRadioGuy ^{What's that?/What I Do/Feed My Box} 14:21, 11 January 2009 (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. The template is currently unused and, as the discussion showed, is not very useful. It is also better to avoid confusion with the magic word. Ruslik (talk) 11:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

This template is only used on a number of articles relating to towns in Finland, where it has broken them[1]. It appears people are trying to use this template instead of the magic word of the same name. –OrangeDog (talk • edits) 01:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Pointless, b0rked template. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 01:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Actually it didn't break the articles until the template was modified.[2] But nevertheless, the ((formatnum)) template was used by mistake and all (I hope) articles using it have now been fixed. It was also used in ((Infobox Finnish Municipality)) which have been fixed, too, but there seems to be some delay until the fix in the Infobox template takes effect in all the articles using it. So, as the fix takes effect in every article, I say N delete. --Apalsola ^{t • c} 20:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I think that this is one of a series of templates that fix up magic word-template confusion. They provide a useful service, because someone may not be able to see past the template syntax and otherwise give up on making an improvement to WP. It is simple enough for a bot to subst: the templates. Rich Farmbrough, 18:31 11 January 2009 (UTC).
• Comment Pretty certain it was broken before I nominated it, else I would not have nominated. If it were fixed or auto-subst'd in some way it might be useful, but deleting it would force people to learn how to use magic words properly. Whether this is a good thing I don't know. –OrangeDog (talk • edits) 01:26, 12 January 2009 (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 all. The templates belong to the project marked as historical. Ruslik (talk) 11:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Icu-triage (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Icu-saved (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Icu-treated (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Intensive Care Unit (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Also including ((icu-triage)) and ((Intensive Care Unit)), ((Icu-saved)) and ((Icu-treated)) and whatever. WP:WICU was tagged as historical, so I see no need for the template to be around anymore. There are also almost no cases "where the article has major issues that might otherwise result in deletion" anyway. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 00:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all. I went through and orphaned ((Icu)) by hand a week or two ago, as there's absolutely no reason to be displaying article templates referring to an inactive project-space effort. Same goes for ((icu-triage)), ((icu-treated)), and ((icu-saved)), which are similarly irrelevant now. ((Intensive Care Unit)) is just used on the talk pages of the other templates (apparently the author never metatemplate they didn't like?) so it'll end up unused once everything else is deleted - oh, and the name should be made available for a potential nav template regarding real ICUs. :) Zetawoof_(ζ) 01:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All good points, Zetawoof. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 01:14, 10 January 2009 (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 G2 Test page. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The template was created by a new user without knowing that one already existed (see here). The infobox template was evidently intended to be used only in one article. It's not made correctly anyway, and not likely to be improved to anything useful. Chamal ^talk 14:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• G2 Test page. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:32, 10 January 2009 (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.