Template:2018 FIFA World Cup qualification – UEFA Qualified Teams table
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).
Unnecessary duplication of information that is already available on any article which would possibly transclude this template. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 23:46, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOR. FIFA does not rank the UEFA qualified teams by their qualifying result; only the second-placed teams to determine play-off teams. jd22292(Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 00:02, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For the same reason as Jkudlick. Centaur271188 (talk) 00:29, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 17:59, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable. GiantSnowman 18:01, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom and above !votes. Inter&anthro (talk) 04:22, 17 October 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).
Template:Collective entity
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 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).
Template:Icelandic political colours
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).
Should be superseded by associated color templates (e.g. ((Bright Future (Iceland)/meta/color))) Mélencron (talk) 23:18, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nihlus 19:02, 15 October 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).
Template:Lyo-Merly
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 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).
Template:Lists of Danish architects
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).
Ipigott might remember what we did with it but we were planning on creating detailed tabled lists of Danish architects and that was why it was created.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:06, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can see, the list is sufficient.--Ipigott (talk) 16:08, 18 October 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).
Template:BanatJosephinischeLandaufnahme,1769-72
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. It appears there was some confusion with the commons copy of this template (which is used) Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 23:06, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: to this template are linked so many maps. Please see the grid on the picture, and click to each one of it. The template is used. Regards, ––Silenzio76 (talk) 17:55, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: This proposal is a mistake. The template is used in many maps. See what Silenzio76 specified above. --Accipiter Q. Gentilis (talk) 18:38, 8 October 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).
Template:NSFIL
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).
unused since 2007, doesn't appear to be a valid license Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:50, 15 October 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).
Template:Music genre infobox request
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 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 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).
Template:Ball family
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).
Fails WP:NAVBOX #4 & 5: "4. There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template." and "5. If not for the navigation template, an editor would be inclined to link many of these articles in the See also sections of the articles." There is no Ball family, unlike Template:Kennedy family with Kennedy family. The family member bios already list all the other family members, and likewise with their TV show listing all the family and visa versa. Therefore, there isn't a bunch of "See also"'s being saved. The other articles are a WP:COATRACK; Chino Hills High School doesn't need a link to a song about a former student, nor a bloated navbox about the goings-on of past enrollees. —Bagumba (talk) 08:07, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not noteworthy at this time. Let’s see if the younger Ball kids achieve any fame. Right now this “phenomenon” is only driven by the father’s mouth. Rikster2 (talk) 12:31, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not enough there yet. Frietjes (talk) 14:08, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Remain neutral on the matter. While I do understand the concerns, at the same time, if the Ball boys do perform well in their professional careers moving forward, it can be a bit handy to have. That can be double the case in terms of something like a rap career for Lonzo, somewhat similar to that of Shaquille O'Neal or even Damian Lillard. Regardless, I would also have to note that LiAngelo Ball should have his own proper article about him by this point in time, especially since college basketball's going to begin, and there's likely interest in UCLA based off of Ball alone. – AGreatPhoenixSunsFan (talk) 23:56, 18 October 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).
Speedy Keep - Passes WP:CRYSTAL as a scheduled high-visibility event. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 03:13, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
keep, if this isn't used in three months, please renominate it, but deleting it now would be pointless. Frietjes (talk) 15:01, 17 October 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).
Template:Locomotives and rolling stock of privately-owned railways in Victoria, Australia
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 per G7. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:56, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Locomotives and rolling stock of privately-owned railways in Victoria, Australia (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).
Template:List of major urban areas in Alappuzha district
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 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).
Template:List of Middle powers by date
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 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).
Template:Ligi Ndogo S.C. squad
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 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).
Template:Legenda dos resultados de F1
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 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).
Template:AFL HAW
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).
Another orphaned template which isn't required and I don't see any foreseeable use of this template. Pkbwcgs (talk) 18:24, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've seen this template used on several AFL box score templates. It follows the standard format with other teams in those box scores. South Nashua (talk) 00:48, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom – unused and unlikely to be used. Duplicate of ((AFL Haw)), if worse comes to worse then just redirect to aforementioned template. Flickerd (talk) 10:48, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 04:07, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete, duplicate as explained above. Frietjes (talk) 14:45, 17 October 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).
Template:AFL FOOT
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).
Orphan template that is not required at all and I don't see any foreseeable use of this template. Pkbwcgs (talk) 18:22, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've seen this template used on several AFL box score templates. It follows the standard format with other teams in those box scores. South Nashua (talk) 00:49, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom – unused and unlikely to be used. Duplicate of ((AFL Foo)), if worse comes to worse then just redirect to aforementioned template. Flickerd (talk) 10:46, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 04:05, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete, duplicate as explained above. Frietjes (talk) 14:46, 17 October 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).
Template:Itawamba County, Mississippi image map
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).
unused. Small obscure county, unlikely to need a map Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:34, 15 October 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).
Template:User 2017 wildfire
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 no consensus wrong venue Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 02:08, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unrelated to editorial collaboration; we would end up with thousands of userboxes like this if we permitted people to create generate them for every newsworthy event, or every personal or professional challenge. This could perhaps be userspaced, though. The name doesn't really make any sense, though; there has been more than one wildfire in 2017. We hardly need to have a location-and-date version of this for every wildfire since the start of wikipedia, so I think the proper TfD result is delete. — SMcCandlish☏¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 03:14, 15 October 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 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).
unused, single use, subst if needed Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:49, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No longer unused. Cbl62 (talk) 23:18, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Actually, there appear to be two identical templates with different names. Compare the standings template at 1960 Wyoming Cowboys football team. Whichever one is correctly named should be kept; the other should be delete. Cbl62 (talk) 23:25, 15 October 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).