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).

The result of the discussion was speedy delete. Primefac (talk) 23:27, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Suicide response (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A well-intentioned but flawed attempt at outreach to users who have made possibly suicidal posts. First off, we shouldn't respond to suicide threats with templates. The proper course of action is to contact the Foundation's emergency email and let them handle it. It isn't our job to do this, and we shouldn't be trying. It is the back office's job to handle these situations, all we need to do is let them know and then back off.

Secondly, this has the effect of creating a list of users who have made suicidal statements, easily accessible by clicking "what links here." That is also not desirable or helpful. We should not have any mechanism in place to permanently "name and shame" people who have expressed suicidal thoughts.

Like I said, well intentioned, but flawed. We just should not have this. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:50, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - seeing boilerplate text that says, " I am genuinely sorry [...]" - nope. That's not going to help matters, really. Communicate 1:1, or better still - contact the WMF emergency number and let them handle it - Alison ^❤ 00:14, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I saw this actually used the other day, and it was horribly inappropriate. --Rschen7754 01:55, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Not appropriate. -FASTILY 03:40, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no longer relevant. When I initially wrote this template, it was in a much different form, and it was written in response to the lack of guidelines then available. WP:SUICIDE was just an essay then, and it didn't have the clarity it does now.--Aervanath (talk) 09:20, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per WP:SNOW. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:01, 26 February 2017 (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).

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Primefac (talk) 04:27, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Soap operas in Australia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navbox was listing international soap operas broadcast in Australia. Now navbox reduced per WP:NOTTVGUIDE, it's pretty pointless. Rob Sinden (talk) 10:45, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, but not for the reason you give. NOTTVGUIDE is for program listings, times, etc.; it's entirely reasonable to provide a list of soap operas that have been broadcast in Australia, and therefore, it's not a problem on that level to have a template for them. However, in most situations, it's not helpful to put a page on the template if the template doesn't belong on the page, and if these soap opera articles had navboxes for all the countries in which they were broadcast, it would be overwhelming. I therefore don't think that they belong on the template, and with them removed, I agree that it's pretty pointless. Nyttend (talk) 12:19, 27 February 2017 (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).

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).

The result of the discussion was Withdrawn -FASTILY 10:39, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:PD-Coa-Finland (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:PD-Coa-Mexico (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:PD-FinlandGov (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:PD-GreekGov (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:PD-Tunisia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:PD-HK (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:PD-Bahrain (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:PD-Indonesia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused copyright tags. Any future uploads under these licenses belong at Commons. FASTILY 09:46, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, in line with my reasoning for a previous nomination of this sort. Deleting the copyright tags would damage the old revisions of files that used them (making it look like they were unlicensed or improperly licensed), without any significant benefit to the encyclopedia. Nyttend (talk) 12:21, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• It is unused because files transcluding it have been deleted or moved to Commons. Uploaders should be encouraged to contribute these files at Commons, and leaving these tags in place sends the wrong message. Furthermore, any human reviewing said 'old revision' would click on the red link, find this discussion, and understand what happened. -FASTILY 09:42, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There is no requirement in policy to upload free content to commons rather than to en-wiki. Most of these templates should be expected to appear unused because anyone who uses them, will probably have their content moved to commons anyway. There are editors who choose to avoid commons, and deleting these templates only makes their work more difficult, for really no good reason. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:11, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This tag may be required for files temporarily copied from commons for protection purposes. For work in joint copyright this tag may be one of several for a file that is in copyright in one of the source countries and so may not be hosted on commons. Template deletion is not an appropriate way of encouraging uploading to commons. This is a template associated with a policy, WP:Image use policy, and so should not have been nominated here ("cannot be listed at TFD", see above). Thincat (talk) 23:45, 1 March 2017 (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).

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).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2017 March 2. Primefac (talk) 01:53, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Adele songs (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Adele (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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).

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).

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 12:09, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Taronga Zoo Ferry link (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:56, 22 February 2017 (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).