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The result of the discussion was Withdrawn -FASTILY 01:38, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:PD-USGov-DHS (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:PD-USGov-DOC (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:PD-USGov-Education (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:PD-USGov-Interior-BLM (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:PD-USGov-MUTCD (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:PD-USGov-PHS (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused copyright tags. Any future uploads under these licenses belong at Commons. FASTILY 23:54, 26 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) 09:06, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. If someone wants to upload it here they need a licensing template to do so for it to be a valid file. We shouldn't be restricting their ability to do that. --Majora (talk) 22:35, 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) 23:51, 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 Delete. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:07, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:GPnotebook2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused after ten years; redundant to ((GPnotebook)) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:49, 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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:08, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Noir registry (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template collects together noir films from the classic era that have been added to the National Film Registry. The registry itself makes no reference to different genres i.e. you don't have a registry of noirs, or Westerns etc. From the perspective of the registry each film enjoys the same relationship with each other film in the registry regardless of genre. Therefore the template employs WP:SYNTHESIS to create an arbitrary subset of films. Secondly, the template violates #3 of WP:NAVBOX, which recommends that the articles refer to each other to a reasonable extent. In reality the articles about the films are written in a manner such that they are completely independent of the other films in the registry. Generally, each film article will mention the registry itself but it goes no further than that. In that sense the articles themselves do not provide a motivation for providing navigation between them. Betty Logan (talk) 16:28, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. As mentioned the NFR does not break their films into genres. Thus, there is WP:OR involved in adding films to this template. MarnetteD|Talk 16:55, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 17:56, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. - Gothicfilm (talk) 23:41, 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 Relisted on 2017 March 6 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:08, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:EngvarO (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Use British (Oxford) English (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 Relisted on 2017 March 6 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:08, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:PD-art-US-1996 (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 Relisted on 2017 March 6 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:08, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Somali presidential elections (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Somali elections (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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:09, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:GO Transit rail system (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused and probably out of date. Jc86035 (talk) Use ((re|Jc86035))
to reply to me 11:49, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and update. Potentially useful, as there is no RDT for the entire GO train network. Useddenim (talk) 14:01, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A RDT with more than a couple distinct lines is very confusing and hard to follow. This is especially for a radial network like GO's where parallel lines are the exact opposite of reality. — Train2104 (talk • contribs) 23:12, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then, by that logic, ((Amsterdam Metro route diagram)), ((Berlin U-Bahn route diagram)), ((Kiev Metro route diagram)), ((Vienna U-Bahn route diagram)), etc. should also all be deleted. Useddenim (talk) 01:50, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Requesting withdrawal of nomination; now used on GO Transit and updated. Jc86035 (talk) Use ((re|Jc86035))
  to reply to me 01:52, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this is just a confusing template that is an inferior merger of ((GO Transit Lakeshore West)), ((GO Transit Lakeshore East)), ((GO Transit Milton)), ((GO Transit Kitchener)), ((GO Transit Barrie)), ((GO Transit Richmond Hill)), and ((GO Transit Stouffville)). --Natural R_X 03:40, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's not an inferior “merger”, as this template predates the others you cite. Useddenim (talk) 01:50, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semantics. My overall point is that it is inferior to these other templates, and it is a messy combination of their content. @Jc86035: I have also removed it from GO Transit. --Natural R_X 22:03, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - this diagram is a mess and falls to convey any useful information if a reader were trying to get an understanding of the GO rail system. --Whpq (talk) 00:39, 3 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 6 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:09, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Skagway Borough, Alaska (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).