Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 July 16

< July 15	July 17 >

July 16 edit

Wikia besed and other template 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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikia is not a wikipedia or wikimedia website. as this is advertising and spamming template. --Xiao632 22:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom --Nicko 00:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is spam. Hydrogen Iodide 01:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pure spam. It's also not surprising that COI SPA Wikivid (talk · contribs) created Template:Wikivid. I'll report this at WT:WPSPAM. MER-C 03:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forgotten realms appears to be a recreation. MER-C 03:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Spam--Hu12 03:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If I may interject, these are Xiao632's first edits. And I believe {{Bulbadex}} and {{Bulbapedia}} are not used for spam, but they are instead used for secondary resources.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: {{Bulbapedia}} only contains a link directly to their main page pretending its a Wikimedia-related project. {{Bulbadex}} does the same job presenting that wiki as a standard reference. Smells spam to me. / Mats Halldin (talk) 09:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Pure spam. / Mats Halldin (talk) 09:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As is often the case with multiple-listing TFDs, there's an issue here, as this actually targets two very different sorts of templates. In the interests of fairness, I am delisting the 24, and KyleXY ones. This issue has already recently been considered in three TfDs, beginning with Template:FreeContentMeta, which was used to create the KyleXY and 24 ones. Subsequently, Template:HarryPotterWiki and, I believe, Template:Wookieepedia Box were nominated for deletion. In all three cases, the templates survived deletion. No new information or arguments are being provided in this TfD, making it a case of asking the other parent. That is not to argue that these templates are immune from re-nomination, but it is misleading to lump them in with other templates when their parent template and substantively identical templates have survived deletion in recent memory. For this to be done by what is obviously an account designed specifically to nominate these articles for AfD (since these were the user's first logged-in edit) is not a valid use of our deletion process. Phil Sandifer 12:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Bulbapedia is not a free content project by Wikipedia's definition (It uses a non-commercial license). Wikivid would be appropriate if it existed (As it's hosted by Wikiversity), but it doesn't. Phil Sandifer 05:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, wikivid refers to wikivid.com as v:Special:Search/wikivid comes up empty. Speaking of wikivid, their general disclaimer looks extremely familiar... MER-C 10:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but that search page is part of Wikiversity, which is a Wikimedia project like Wikibooks, which we do interwiki to regularly. The only problem is, nothing seems to come up from Wikivid. Phil Sandifer 12:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What the hell does "besed" mean? Chris Buckey 19:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I do not see how the Bulbapedia template can be considered spam; they didn't attempt to sell anything to me, and the site provides what it claims to provide with no apparent deception. Link spam is inserted places where its largely irrelevant, masquerading as something it isn't. Oh, they certainly aren't doing anything to attempt to bypass adblock either. Zaphraud 03:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see Bulbapedia as spam. Often cases they have more information on different parts of pokemon then you do of that part. Like leveling up, tms, etc. It's not spam in any way, to me. 15:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

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:The CW Delaware 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. IronGargoyle 06:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another unused state template for a network with no affiliates licensed in or based in the state itself (in this case, The CW). The one station that would best fit in this template – WMDT-DT2/"WBD" – is actually based in Salisbury, Maryland, not in Delaware. — WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:41, 16 July 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:MNTV Delaware 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. IronGargoyle 06:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another unused state template for a network with no affiliates licensed in or based in the state itself (in this case, MyNetworkTV). The stations on the template are respectively based in Philadelphia and Baltimore – neither city is actually in Delaware. — WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:41, 16 July 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:UPN Maine 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. IronGargoyle 06:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another unused state template for the now-defunct UPN network. As before, we don't have templates for networks that have ceased to exist. — WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; pointless. Likewise for the one immediately below. Shalom ^Hello 20:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - network is defunct; precedent has supported removing such templates. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:40, 19 July 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:UPN Massachusetts 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. IronGargoyle 06:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another unused state template for the now-defunct UPN network. As before, we don't have templates for networks that have ceased to exist. — WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - network is defunct; precedent has supported removing such templates. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:40, 19 July 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:Unencyclopedic 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 no consensus. There doesn't seem to be any particularly dominating arguments on either side. I would be a lot more convinced about it being useful if it were actually used to a significant degree, but there certainly doesn't seem to be any consensus for deletion here either. IronGargoyle 04:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template has been nominated for deletion twice before (keep, March 2007; and "no consensus", 2006). These earlier discussions are linked from Template talk:Unencyclopedic. The dispute seems to revolve around a basic problem. Inclusionists find it useful to have a template which recommends deletion without actually starting a deletion process. Deletionists say there's no need for such a provisional deletion template, and if the purpose is to suggest cleanup, a more specific template would work better.

I am nominating this template for a third time in order to suggest an option that has not yet been considered. Having listed several hundred pages for deletion in the last months, I can tell you that I have no need for this template. Either I wish to send the page to a deletion discussion, or I don't. This template hovers in the netherworld of ambiguity. At the same time, some users (mostly new users) will instinctively type "unencyclopedic" if they see something that bothers them.

I think the solution is to redirect the template to a cleanup template. My opening bid for a target is Template:Inappropriate tone. It's unclear what "unencyclopedic means", but "inappropriate tone" is a good approximation in most cases. I understand that this does not match the text of the template as currently used. I don't care much about that.

A search of "what links here" reveals many transclusions on non-mainspace pages, but almost no transclusions on articles. This is as it should be. The purpose of a cleanup template is to recommend cleanup, not to recommend deletion. (I feel this way even about Template:Notability, which is sometimes a first step in the path to deletion.) The "unencyclopedic" template should be no exception. — Shalom ^Hello 20:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep the last NFD was less than 4 months ago, that alone should qualify for a speedy keep. I for one fail to see the relationship between “Inappropriate tone” and “Unencyclopedic”, so I don’t see how one would replace the other. The same goes for replacing “Unencyclopedic” with any other cleanup template. Brimba 21:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think its a poor choice of template to use, for it give no specific reason & is thus of little help to anyone wanting to either delete or improve the article It is used at the moment on only one article, which is at AfD and almost certain to be deleted. We've learned a good deal about clean-up methods in the last few months. DGG (talk) 00:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think this is an appropriate tool to have available. --Nicko 00:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This template is useful for articles that have other problems besides tone, advertisement. I don't think there is a replacement template for "unencyclopedic". Hydrogen Iodide 01:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Though I appreciate the well-reasoned nomination argument, I don't see this as a redundant template, for similar reasons to HI. Grutness...wha? 01:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - useful template. Unencyclopaedic <> inappropriate tone, anyway. Orderinchaos 06:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per everyone else. Dfrg.msc 07:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because in almost all situations, a different template describes the issue better. This is indicated by the sheer (lack of) size of Category:Articles_which_may_be_unencyclopedic, as opposed to for instance Category:Cleaup by month. >Radiant< 11:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, useful template, not redunant. GlassFET 18:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Doesn't seem terribly useful, but I might be mistaken. Chris Buckey 19:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Unencyclopedic" is not a useful criticism for an entire section or article. User:Argyriou (talk) 00:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think it is very useful to have a wide range of nuance available when one wants to say "this article needs improvement or it will have to go". It is also useful to be able to say that, instead of listing it under AfD and thus imposing a deadline. Tualha (Talk) 02:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a useful template to give editors a chance to fix the problem before and AfD. Until(1 == 2) 16:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The very few times I've run across it in an article, it leaves me scratching my head, wondering what is wrong with the article. The one time where an editor specified the problem on the talk page, there was a more specific template (in this case {{dictdef}}) that covered the problem.--Fabrictramp 21:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep particularly useful on a section, rather than a whole article, but in anycase useful for starting a focused debate on the issue of inclusion. DES ^(talk) 22:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is this going to start a focused debate? {{dicdef}}, {{unsourced}}, etc, should start a debate or cleanup effort, but {{unencyclopedic}} is just WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Argyriou (talk) 22:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It focuses the debate on whether the subject is approprite to an encyclopedia, a question to which sourcing, for example, is irrelevant. DES ^(talk) 00:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't think of a single situation where there isn't going to be a more appropriate template to use instead of this rather confusing and ambiguous "catch-all". I can see this being being slapped on any article for any reason, instead of a more correct and to the point template, which is not at all helpful to anyone. Miremare 12:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've run into several situations where there was a need to differentiate between accuracy of content and appropriateness of topic, this template provides a clear and formal way of explaining things that people tend to take notice of more than they do a message written by a user telling them the exact same thing. -perfectblue 15:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep its an attention grabber. There aren't that many pages with this template on them. Lord Sesshomaru 22:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We have {{prod}} for a reason. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 20:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unspecific. Tag-it-and-go does not help the next person to view the tag (in this case). Issues of scope are handled by deletion debates. Gracenotes^T § 05:49, 23 July 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:Seriously 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 seriously delete. A redirect might work, but I don't think {{uw-blp1}} is the right target. IronGargoyle 06:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template could be redirected into {{subst:uw-blp1}} and that series as it sort of blends in with the removing of unsourced and libel material, this template seems unnecessary. Rlest 19:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nah, I don't see a need for a redirect. Something about this template just doesn't seem consistent with the measured tone of the standard four-level warnings. I won't say it's WP:NOOB biting, but I think plain text is less bitey than bright orange. Shalom ^Hello 20:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm sorry, but I just laughed out loud at the sentence "OK, it is time for your joking to end." Specifically, I'm imagining Arnold Schwarzenegger saying it. Per Shalom, the standard warnings suffice...and are much more mellifluous. --zenohockey 05:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it sounds like a teacher telling someone off, rather than a warning. Orderinchaos 06:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I think personal messages are better than a standard warning. Carlosguitar 10:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I think it's good to have something that isn't just WP jargon. It's a message that people actually understand, instead of "Users who fail to comply with WP:V and WP:RS may be tem. blocked indefinately dure to WP:BBB and WP:AZX." It's actually a template that sounds like someone's talking to them, instead of a robot. -^Violask8₁₉₇₆ 21:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are other templates that say it better, and I find the tone of this one a bit rude. Tualha (Talk) 02:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete Tone is patronising and rude, likely to violate WP:BITE if used, which it shouldn't be. We have plenty of well-written warnings around for various specific acts, this is both too general and too harsh. DES ^(talk) 22:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Various other templates at WP:UTM express similar sentiments more appropriately. -- Satori Son 02:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete per above--Sefringle^Talk 02:45, 21 July 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:Wallaby characters 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. IronGargoyle 06:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All of the character articles have been merged into the main article, and the template is both no longer in use nor has any use. — Quasirandom 17:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete navigational template has no navigational purpose. Gracenotes^T § 17:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no longer useful. Tualha (Talk) 02:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unneeded. Hydrogen Iodide 16:44, 20 July 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:Terrorism in Iraq 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 no consensus. IronGargoyle 05:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The template doesn't look useful. It is very unclear at its scope and there are better templates already providing the task its title implies such as Template:Campaignbox Iraq War terrorism. -- Cat ^chi? 11:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete - terrorism is just one side's POV.--Svetovid 18:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as long as the articles listed are not included in any other template. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 00:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with TheFEARgod, however I do think that there are a lot of templates relating to this subject and many could be consolidated into 1 or 2--Kumioko 01:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with nominator and also Svetovid - one man's terrorist is another man's freedom/resistance fighter, especially in a fraught situation like Iraq. Orderinchaos 06:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It links alot of articles together in a logical fashion. Dfrg.msc 07:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename and edit. Useful, but as others have pointed out, "terrorism" is a POV term. Not sure what NPOV term to use - insurgency? Paramilitary? Ask someone who can actually stand to follow the news these days... Tualha (Talk) 02:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Somewhat useful but all the info in it can be merged with other Terrorism in Iraq template. Publicus 18:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete, the template is unspecific and prejudicial, it also contains no means to differentiate between terrorism, legitimate resistance, and criminal activity (many so called terrorist attacks in Iraq are just plain murders, people settling old score or getting revenge for an earlier killing, which isn't terrorism). - perfectblue 15:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per perfectblue. The uncertain definition of terrorism is a problem. Gracenotes^T § 13:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep but expand. It has the potential, but it isn't ready to be in any article. For now, it probably should have been kept in the userspace.--Sefringle^Talk 02:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep- per TheFearGod.Top Gun
Delete - Not useful for an encyclopedia, and besides not every incident in that conflict will be documented here, so the template is misleading (Assassinations is empty, chemical attacks redirects to an article about a single incident, redirecting from a template cat is an incorrect use of the template), and anyway this is replaceable by Category. Bleh999 04:44, 24 July 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:Green line 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 all. IronGargoyle 23:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...or more specifically Green line, Red line, Blue line, and Tvärbanan. There are articles about the Stockholm Metro and Tvärbanan, but virtually no articles about the individual stations listed in the templates. All these links are either red, lead to substubs containing only the template (Hässelby Gård, Danderyds sjukhus, Duvbo, Alvik), to disamigs (Trekanten, Linde, Luma), to articles containing no information about the metro (Gamla stan, Skogskyrkogården, Stockholm Olympic Stadium), or are hardly used (Tvärbanan). In addition, most of these stations (especially the red links) are little more than simple concrete structures located in remote suburbs and hardly of any notability (I did drive the metro for ten years, so I actually visited most of these stations at countless occasions). Exceptions to this description are the stations along the blue line where each station at least has a stub. However, I see no point in keeping this template while scrapping the others. I therefore suggest these templates should be deleted or, if they somehow are considered worth keeping, used only in articles directly related to the Public transport in Stockholm. / Mats Halldin (talk) 10:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just discovered Template:Pendeltåg which I think can be added to the deletion proposal above.
/ Mats Halldin (talk) 10:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest writing and/or expanding the articles instead. // Liftarn

Comment: Also consider Template:Nockebybanan Kildor 21:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The navigation boxes are of very little use and make the appearance and layout of the articles bad. I suggest that the templates are replaced by lists of stations, i.e. List of Stockholm metro stations. See Category:Lists of metro stations. Kildor 21:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Yes, replacing these templates with links to a list is a good idea. I wrote a hundred or so articles about streets and squares in Gamla stan adding such a link to each of them. Some of these articles are stubs and a template would have given them undue weight. The same should be the case with these railway stubs. I don't see a point in producing the articles proposed by the templates just to save the templates. / Mats Halldin (talk) 09:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replace with list. One article is enough, surely, on this Wikipedia - Swedes who want to check something would probably use the Swedish Wikipedia anyway, no? Tualha (Talk) 02:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Many of the metro stations have decent articles in Swedish. /192.121.234.65 10:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm sorry, they don't. Most of them are only a brief section in an article about a suburb. Whenever there are articles about these stations on the Swedish Wikipedia, they are typically named [[Name (metro station)]]. As there are virtually no articles about these stations on the English Wikipedia, I see absolutely no point in having templates for them. / Mats Halldin (talk) 16:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment contrast Medborgarplatsen versus Ronald_Reagan_Washington_National_Airport_(Washington_Metro) ... in my view the latter article looks better as the lines are connected to their next stations in each direction. That is a lot of work (each article takes different parameters to the line template) compared to just listing them all in a template at the bottom but it's better. Many US metro/subway/streetcar/passenger rail lines are done this way and it's quite useful I feel. ++Lar: t/c 02:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If you two (at least Mats Halldin, who is Swedish) had bothered to read the Swedish articles about the metro stations and not some article about a suburb, square, street intersection or whatever, you would have seen that, like I said, many of the metro stations have decent articles in Swedish. (See sv:Kategori:Stockholms tunnelbanestationer) /192.121.234.65 11:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, s-line templates are more useful for context (and less confusing). A large list, as suggested by Tualha, may be useful to visualize an entire line. There is not the general space limitation of a template. Gracenotes^T § 05:52, 23 July 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:FOX Delaware 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. IronGargoyle 06:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The template is pointless as there are no FOX affiliates licensed in Delaware. This is the reason FOX New Jersey was deleted. — KansasCity 07:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The two stations in the template are visible to viewers in Delaware, but the stations are in MD and PA. Shalom ^Hello 20:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - template's entries are not in state and do not belong in template. Since there are no stations of this network in the state, the template is unnecessary. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is another unused state template for a network with no affiliates licensed in or based in the state itself. The stations in the template are actually based in Salisbury, Maryland and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania — not Delaware. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. There's no need for this template. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 06:08, 24 July 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:USAMarketingcycle 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 both. IronGargoyle 06:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amerocentric original research! 86.12.249.63 17:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - even if some sources were provided to support the information, I can't see this being of use. An article on this (or a subsection is another appropriate article) would make more sense. --Nicko 00:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:RS and WP:OR. Carlosguitar 11:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Hydrogen Iodide 16:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The nomination tag on this template has been removed [1] by the User:Ben_W_Bell 86.12.249.63 17:55, 20 July 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.