Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 May 7

< May 6	May 8 >

May 7, 2006 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 delete Circeus 03:02, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:IGI edit

Delete since it is used nowhere else and is already substed anyway. -- Grafikm_fr ^(AutoGRAF) 22:35, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Single-use template. —Cuivi é nen (talk•contribs), Sunday, 7 May 2006 @ 23:06 UTC
Delete per above. Joelito (talk) 17:33, 11 May 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.

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 delete Circeus 03:02, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Prioryofsion edit

Template:Prioryofsion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
We should not mix fiction with fact. Including this in articles about real people is confusing, and Dan Brown's theories are relatively minor compared to all the other things Isaac Newton or Victor Hugo have done. This template doesn't merit inclusion in the encyclopaedia, based on its current use, as it gives undue weight to a piece of fiction. Johnleemk | Talk 06:02, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See also [1]. Johnleemk | Talk 06:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Also note that the priory is one of the most discredited conspiracy theories in existence, and that the claimed list here isn't even universal among people who claim that the priory did exist. I've been bold and removed the template from the pages it was on. JoshuaZ 06:05, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Rob 06:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lupo 08:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unalledged conspiracy theories have nothing to do on WP. -- Grafikm_fr ^(AutoGRAF) 11:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hoax nonsense/ Dan Brown fancruft. Even the original French hoaxers don't consider this to be their "real" list of names anyway - they produced another "real" supersecret list of different names after they were first revealed as hoaxing losers. Bwithh 11:56, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete succession boxes for fringe theory offices.--Pharos 00:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not encyclopedic, IMO. Kaldari 22:38, 10 May 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.

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 delete Circeus 03:02, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mills corp edit

Since there are redlinks, a list would be better than a category - and a list is already part of the article Mills Corporation. The template currently provides categorisation for pages it is used on - if the template is removed, the category should be added back. SeventyThree^(Talk) 02:23, 7 May 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.

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 delete Circeus 03:02, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Move Following To Wiktionary edit

Template:Move Following To Wiktionary (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Unused template, template fork from Template:Move to Wiktionary. See relevant discussion at Template talk:Move to Wiktionary#Updating the text in the box. TheProject 23:50, 7 May 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.