Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 December 7

< December 6	December 8 >

December 7[edit]

Template:Friends1[edit]

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 debate was delete. Wizardman 03:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No longer in use (orphaned) after the majority of Friends episodes were redirected for notabiliy reasons. I'm also nominating the following templates for the same reason:

– sgeureka ^t•c 22:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, speedy if possible. Orphaned and no chance they will find new use. Collectonian (talk) 22:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think it would be best if they got rid of those friends links and Merge what is left of those articles because they link also to articles that belong on the friends article.--Stco23 (talk) 22:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly. Eusebeus (talk) 22:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. BD2412 T 02:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete as deprecated and unused. JPG-GR (talk) 02:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per JPG-GR. Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 02:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Orphaned, not much possibility of adoption. Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 05:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete orphaned template that doesn't seem like it'll be used anytime soon. Maser ^(Talk!) 06:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Magioladitis (talk) 00:21, 10 December 2007 (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.

Template:Chip 'n Dale[edit]

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 debate was delete. With only 2 links, this template is obsolete. Carlosguitar ^{(ready and willing)} 04:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary template. The sub articles of Chip 'n Dale Rescue Rangers are already well wikified in the main article, and an effort is underay to merge the various character articles back into the main and redirect. . Collectonian (talk) 18:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think it is a necessary template because it keeps the other articles at bay and other images will be deleted if this template is deleted.--Stco23 (talk) 21:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep until such time as the characters are reintegrated into the main article (if that is the destined future for them), and then delete as unnecessary. JPG-GR (talk) 02:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The merging is now completed and the redirects done. So the template now is almost all circular links back to the main article. The template has also been removed from some pages as part of the article clean ups. Collectonian (talk) 10:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per JPG-GR. Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 05:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Six articles remain. –Pomte 07:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, only two others. All rest go to back Chip 'n Dale Rescue Rangers Collectonian (talk) 07:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, seven of the links redirect to Chip 'n Dale Rescue Rangers, two are redlinks. --Stormie (talk) 04:24, 15 December 2007 (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.

Template:User discretion[edit]

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 debate was speedily delete under WP:CSD#G7. matt br 10:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per Wikipedia is not censored, and Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles. -- Quiddity (talk) 02:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for creating this template, and was unaware that it violated Wikipedia policies. I agree that it should be deleted. --Mikco (talk) 02:13, 7 December 2007 (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.

Template:Project Congress cat class[edit]

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 debate was speedily deleted by Philippe under WP:CSD#G7. matt br 10:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SPEEDY. Author request. My mistake. — —Markles 00:17, 7 December 2007 (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.