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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox RvB character (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned and redundant to ((Infobox character)) Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:58, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete—redundant and unnecessary. Imzadi 1979 → 23:35, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, redundant. Axem Titanium (talk) 10:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:42, 24 July 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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:57, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The Tribe character (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to ((Infobox character)). It was only being used on two pages, so I replaced it. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:52, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete—redundant and unnecessary. Imzadi 1979 → 23:35, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, redundant. Axem Titanium (talk) 10:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:42, 24 July 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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:57, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Magnum P.I. character (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to ((infobox character)). It was only being used on about six pages, so I replaced it. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:42, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete—redundant and unnecessary. Imzadi 1979 → 23:35, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, redundant. Axem Titanium (talk) 10:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:42, 24 July 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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:57, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mickey & Co Character (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned with way too much in-universe information. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:31, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete—redundant and unnecessary. Imzadi 1979 → 23:35, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, redundant. Axem Titanium (talk) 10:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:42, 24 July 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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:57, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NX Files character (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to ((Infobox character)). It was only being used on one page so I replaced it. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:31, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete—redundant and unnecessary. Imzadi 1979 → 23:35, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, redundant. Axem Titanium (talk) 10:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:42, 24 July 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 per author approval Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:59, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template no longer needed. I am the author. Thank you BsBsBs (talk) 20:27, 18 July 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, with no objection to further discussion if a for it need arises. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Obvious fraud; the link is to a discussion of copyright in Poland, not Iran. (ESkog)^(Talk) 12:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Cleanup—given the recent creation, I'm willing to extend the benefit of the doubt that the creator copied and pasted from a Polish template. The link wasn't changed in the creation, but that doesn't negate the usefulness of the template once fixed. Imzadi 1979 → 19:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • But this is a template claiming something about the copyright status of images created by the Iranian government, and such a claim requires evidence. I think that in this case, "cleanup" most likely means "delete". Unless there's some evidence that such works are indeed in the public domain - and I'm not aware of any - then there's no value in having this template. (ESkog)^(Talk) 00:30, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• There should be some demonstration of utility if this is to be kept, and I don't see one; rather, the template's author (now blocked as a sockpuppet) has a long history of failing to abide by WP copyright policy, and quite how a member of the Polish Senate would be able to grant permission for images (allegedly) copyrighted by the Iranian government is not at all clear. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:53, 20 July 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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Dundrod Circuit (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unnecessary - it's just a list of parts of the circuit, which will never have their own articles. DH85868993 (talk) 12:26, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete—agree that the parts aren't notable enough to warrant articles. Without the possibility of article creation, the template is useless. Imzadi 1979 → 19:59, 18 July 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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:44, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template is barely used and ties together a bunch of disparate lists; it doesn't strike me as terribly useful. The name is unnecessarily narrow, so at a minimum the template should be moved. It could be a candidate for expansion, but there already are economics, finance and marketing templates. Miracle Pen (talk) 06:45, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete—as redundant to the mentioned templates. Imzadi 1979 → 07:26, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• redirect to economics navbox. Rich Farmbrough, 11:53, 21 July 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 Keep Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:58, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Trans-Neptunian objects (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Compare to List of trans-Neptunian objects: were this template edited to be properly exhaustive of all our TNO articles, it would be far too enormous to qualify as an appropriate Navbox. As it stands, though, there are a substantial number of entries that are omitted, effectively arbitrarily, and in light of how unrecognizable TNOs are on the basis of their numberplate-like designations alone, its overall utility to help someone jump to a relevant parallel article is pretty lacking. This is what lists and categories are for. The Tom (talk) 02:00, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and rebuild the types of TNOs could be left as the sole occupants of the template, or the types plus the most prominent examples of each type (first, largest, any other exceedingly high in popularity) 76.66.193.119 (talk) 05:14, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Great suggestion, but the types of TNOs are handled by Template:TNO. The Tom (talk) 07:34, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sidebars and footers are not mutually exclusive. It depends on which articles use what. 76.66.193.119 (talk) 06:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Template:Small Solar System bodies can be used as a navbox at the bottom of an article. -- Kheider (talk) 23:09, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but restrict it to the types of TNOs, as 76.66 suggests. Reyk _YO! 07:23, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep—I like 76.66's idea on how to rescue this. If it isn't rescued that way, delete it and be done. Imzadi 1979 → 07:26, 18 July 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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:58, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Neighborhoods in Medina, Ohio (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Completely full of redlinks and other non-notable entries. If these individual neighbourhoods are not notable, how would this template be useful in aiding navigation? –Schmloof (talk · contribs) 00:30, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete What good is a navbox of red links? Train2104 (talk) 01:24, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete—redlinks in general are not a bad thing. Having them in place will prompt article creation. Ordinarily, I'd say "weak keep" on this template, except that Medina, Ohio is only about 25,000 people. I can't imagine that most of these articles are notable, and the ones that do exist don't meet WP:N in my opinion. Update: The blue-linked articles have been sent to AfD, so definitely delete the template. Imzadi 1979 → 07:26, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As mentioned above, these are neighborhoods (a loose term, since most of these appear to be subdivisions or new housing developments) in a town of 25,000 people. None of these are likely to have the coverage necessary for their own articles (for the most part, they aren't even recognized by the Geographic Names Information System), and the only three bluelinks in the template are all at AfD. If this content belongs anywhere (which it probably doesn't), it's a list, not in individual articles or a template. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 19:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There are areas where the neighbourhoods have or are likely in the next few years to have articles, however this isn't one of them. Nonetheless it is good to note from one of the few blue links that:
• Much of Rustic Hills is located in forest area. As a result, the area is known for its very tall trees.
  More seriously the links need not be notable for the navbox to be useful, they need only be significant. For example, I'm reading Montville Township article and, having some local knowledge am wondering why there's no mention of Eagles Nest in the section on abandoned but still viable gold workings. Glancing down to the navbox I see it is actually in Lafayette Township, face-palming with my left hand and mouse-clicking with my right I click the Layfette link, forward the co-ordinates to Dr. Blofeld and we send in the digging team. Rich Farmbrough, 12:05, 21 July 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.