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) 00:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Presidential Cycling Tour of Turkey standings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Deprecated; not in use, ((Infobox Cycling race report)) replaces. Severo^TC 22:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 18:03, 21 June 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) 00:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Baen's Bar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template seems to have been created as an end-run around policy, which decided to merge the notable content into the article on Baen Books. It's only use is in the Baen Books article, used to embed the full content from the deleted article as a 'side bar' article. This also results in duplication of information in the Baen Article, and makes the article harder to read. Barberio (talk) 19:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• G11 WP:POINTy advertising. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment there are several boilerplate text templates used on various Baen publications related articles. 70.29.212.226 (talk) 05:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  In this case, it's less a 'boilerplate' as it is an entire article included as a sidebar. --Barberio (talk) 20:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - this does look like an extremely disingenuous attempt at sneaking around consensus and policy, essentially gaming the system. Not good. Shereth 00:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you geniuses check further, the article antedated the guidelines you claim it's end running, and Piotr and I acted to preserve content when the article was deemed unworthy because of some piss ant (NEW) notability guideline... [How did the idealists around here forget banning ex-post-facto rules?] Further, the AFD decision was to incorporate it into the Baen article, which is what this does and did. Keeping it as a sidebar is proper use of template space, as it keeps editing the article separate. RULES ARE MADE TO BE BROKEN, when they fetter WP:IAR-editorial judgement.
    
    Since when is notability a final word, when links and references occur in other places? (Well did,... most seem to have been eliminated by other idiots altering things which aren't broken.[1] There used to be a lot of dependent references counting on that sidebar that must now be linked via various redirects to Baen Books article.)
    
    The task was (and apparently no longer is) to get the job done, and explain things, not to blindly follow rules like an infant incapable of making discerning decisions. Some webpage coverage is occasionally useful... for example, all the anthologies, the predominant literature type published in: ((1632 series)) reasoning and explanations are all dependent upon and will directly or indirectly refer to this sidebar... Last I looked, Grantville Gazette XX was coming up fast... but then you anal people ticked me off so much I don't work here anymore. Go ahead and tear down needed and necessary links... it's not YOUR TIME you're wasting... unless you have a conscience... Not! // FrankB 00:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no concept of 'Ex-Post-Facto' rule ban applied to content. You can not 'grandfather in' an old article that does not meet new requirements. Grantville Gazette has an article of it's own, because it is a notable publication, the method by which it was created is discussed in the article, and does not contribute to the notability of a separate Baen's Bar article. --Barberio (talk) 10:48, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• DeleteIf you want to make a case for undeletion of the article, use deletion review; or open a discussion of splitting the article on its talk page. .DGG (talk) 20:41, 19 June 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. Wizardman 02:12, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Invader Zim (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

All of the character articles were redirected, meaning that this template is now used only on four articles (main, episodes, characters, merchandise), all of which are sufficiently interlinked. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Someone !vote already. Jeez. Templates shouldn't be relisted. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Yup, wasn't exactly a keeper before the quickening given the bulk of the template are links to somewhat but not contextually related articles. treelo _radda 19:15, 15 June 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 User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 11:22, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Covenant Award series (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only links to three articles, all of which are sufficiently interlinked. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Links to *six* articles, not three. And I assume will link to one additional new article each year. --Barberio (talk) 19:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Three of which don't even use it. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete per nom at this time. The articles that are directly relevant to the topic are adequately interlinked via in-text and "See also" links and links within infoboxes. If kept, rescope to cover the Covenant Awards in general (not just the song collections) and rename to Template:Convenant Awards. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 03:18, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per nom. Unnecessary. Garion96 (talk) 16:13, 25 June 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) 00:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Carried Away (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

All three members were redirected for lack of individual notability. Without the members' articles, this template now links to only two articles. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Pretty useless template. treelo _radda 19:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Delete per nom. Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 18:01, 21 June 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) 00:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox type use (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only one transclusion in over a year. This seems to be far too rare of a problem to ever see any kind of use, and the formatting is very ugly. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 04:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 01:40, 18 June 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) 00:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Fatboy-icp (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only navigates three articles, redundant of ((Fatboy Slim)) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Yarnalgo _{talk to me} 05:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 18:00, 21 June 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) 00:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bahá'í 2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Identical to ((Bahá'í)), unused. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - WP:CSD#T3 Locos ~ epraix Beaste~praix 17:18, 16 June 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) 00:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bahá'í Faith (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Identical to ((Bahá'í)), unused. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replace code of ((Bahá'í)) with ((Bahá'í Faith)) one. I prefer the last one, though it has worst name. Locos ~ epraix Beaste~praix 17:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and do not replace. There was a discusison on the talk page of the template and the consensus was not to replace ((Bahá'í)) with ((Bahá'í Faith)) as the colours and formatting were not appropriate. -- Jeff3000 (talk) 01:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, there was no conclusion about body colors, the only problem with ((Bahá'í Faith)) is its width and the header color. Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 17:50, 17 June 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) 00:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:BLP probably unsourced (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Now unused since there is now a bot parameter in the Unsourced BLP template which adds a similar notice to it. ViperSnake151  Talk  01:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Not sure I see the need for a TFD here when redirecting the template works just as well. Or tagging it as CSD G6. Regardless, deleting or redirecting the template seems perfectly fine here. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Because it uses the word "probably", I would rather see this deleted than become a redirect. I would rather avoid situations where someone, unfamiliar with the history of this template, tags an article as being "probably unsourced". –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 03:10, 20 June 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.