Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2009 October 29

< October 28	October 30 >

October 29

Template:USN Submarine

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 discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:USN Submarine (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No longer used, appears to be superceded by {{Infobox Ship Begin}} etc., I would presume. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Redundant as indicated in nom, and the only transclusion is on the user page of a user who hasn't made an edit since 2005. --RL0919 (talk) 20:42, 29 October 2009 (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:I-45 aux

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 discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:I-45 aux (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not a very useful template; two items, and one redirects to the other. Rschen7754 (T C) 03:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Are we confident this is all that will be on the template? If so, then I support deletion. However, it was nominated four minutes after it was created, which makes me curious. (Does anyone read WP:BITE any more?) --RL0919 (talk) 13:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
... well, AFAIK there are no other possible auxiliary routes of I-45. And I don't see any reason not to delete it because the user is new. --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If there's no opportunity for expansion, then delete due to not having enough links for a useful navbox. --RL0919 (talk) 16:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unless it is decided to create more auxiliary routes of I-45, this template is useless as there is only one item on it and it is covered in the article the template is included on. --- Dough 48 72 14:32, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Dough4872. --LJ (talk) 18:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dough. – T M F 21:36, 31 October 2009 (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.