Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 December 30

< December 29	December 31 >

December 30 edit

Template:VancouverCOTM article 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 page.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 03:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template is redundant to {{Vancouver COTM}} and for whatever reason is simply a link to the Port of Vancouver article. --Agent 86 21:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. It's just useless, and like you said, it's just a link to the Port of Vancouver article. V60 ^{VTalk - VDemolitions} 23:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - redundant. Orderinchaos78 01:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. By the way,1 "uselessness" is a non-criteria for speedy deletion. -- Selmo ^(talk) 22:09, 1 January 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 page.

Template:User wikipedia/Esperanza 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 page.

The result of the debate was defer to MFD on Esperanza. >Radiant< 00:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This userbox has been sent up for deletion. See also this related MFD debate. --Slgr a n d s o n (page - messages - contribs) 20:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um... why aren't you waiting until the MfD is done? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 20:28, 30 December 2006 (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 page.

MNRR templates 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 page.

The result of the debate was deletion of all. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 03:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These templates have all been superseded by the s-rail and s-line templates for railroad succession. All article space transclusions removed. Mackensen (talk) 18:22, 30 December 2006 (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 page.

LIRR templates 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 page.

The result of the debate was deletion of all. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 03:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These templates have all been superseded by the s-rail and s-line templates for railroad succession. All article space transclusions removed. Mackensen (talk) 17:10, 30 December 2006 (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 page.

Template:Anime-series-stub 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 page.

The result of the debate was move to WP:SFD by nominator --TheFarix (Talk) 20:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Along with associated category Category:Anime series stubs. Duplicate of {{anime-stub}} with no consensus to create. (Two people agreeing does not form a consensus.) It is also unused after existing for over a month. --TheFarix (Talk) 16:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SFD. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 17:08, 30 December 2006 (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 page.

Amtrak templates 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 page.

The result of the debate was deletion of all. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 03:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These templates have all been superseded by the s-rail and s-line templates for railroad succession. All article space transclusions removed. Mackensen (talk) 14:21, 30 December 2006 (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 page.

Template:WikiProjectHobartTasks 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 page.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 03:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2 years out of date template for now-decommissioned project. The main project page at WP:TAS contains~~, or will contain,~~ far more reliable (and up to date) information on project tasks Orderinchaos78 08:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant.--cj | talk 12:36, 30 December 2006 (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 page.

Template:WPHNotice 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 page.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 03:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template is deprecated by WP Australia|Tasmania=yes. No transclusions remain. --Orderinchaos78 07:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as obsolete.--cj | talk 12:36, 30 December 2006 (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 page.

Template:WPCanberraNotice 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 page.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 03:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template is deprecated by WP Australia|Canberra=yes. No transclusions remain. Orderinchaos78 07:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as obsolete.--cj | talk 12:35, 30 December 2006 (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 page.

Template:USP 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 page.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 03:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template is deprecated and not used (Template:DSC now covers this team). --Mk3severo 02:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as obsolete. -Patstuart^talk|edits 20:28, 5 January 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 page.

Template:Blackpool Tramway start 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 page.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 03:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The template is unused. It was part of a series of articles of tramway stops which all got turned into redirects since it was inappropriate to have an empty article for each stop. Hu 20:51, 30 December 2006 (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 page.