Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 May 25



Unused templates

 * 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 all nominated templates deleted. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 15:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

None of these templates are currently in use, or even linked to at all. Their creators, User:People Powered and User:Just H, have been blocked as sockpuppets. Mike Peel 19:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as no identifiable use and non-transcluded. Orderinchaos 20:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete no useful way of using, and will just linger into further obscurity unless they are deleted. Jmlk  17  20:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. I can't bear to think of them drifting in in anonymous obscurity. Put them out of their misery. Herostratus 23:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, not used and quite useless...  *Cremepuff 222*  " As cool as grapes... "  01:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. —dima/talk/ 01:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete, unused clutter and no one seems to object to it's removal. --Barberio 13:20, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Is there a speedy deletion criteria that could have been used here? Mike Peel 20:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. Delete anyway. -- Phoenix2  (talk, review) 22:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Unused. Hardly edited. Even if completed and used, they would be most likely one-used. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 12:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete maybe will never be used. Carlosguitar 05:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Pile-on Delete- NRV. And reasons previously stated. Dfrg.msc 07:57, 28 May 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:Transperth railway lines

 * 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 ^ demon [omg plz] 03:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)



Template has been replaced by TransperthRailwayLines2 and is now considered redundant, no longer in use. Thewinchester (talk) 16:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions.  -- Thewinchester (talk) 16:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Links to nothing useful, and is redundant. Get rid of it.  Jmlk  17  20:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, quite useless, redundant, and not used.  *Cremepuff 222*  " As cool as grapes... "  01:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Redundant of TransperthRailwayLines2, unused. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 12:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete slice it; no longer needed. -- Phoenix2  (talk, review) 16:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Pile-on Delete- NRV. And reasons previously stated. Dfrg.msc 07:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - why wasn't the new template just edited over the top? This procedure and the creation of a new template is worthless. JRG 01:16, 1 June 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:2006/07 Edmonton Oilers Forwards infobox

 * 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. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 15:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)



Already transcluded by Edmonton Oilers roster, of which is the standard for the NHL Roster Templates. — Jmlk17 03:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as nominator. Jmlk  17  05:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, redundant and against standards per WP:HOCKEY. -- Spike Wilbury 16:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, redundant to aforementioned template.  *Cremepuff 222*  " As cool as grapes... "  01:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. -- Phoenix2  (talk, review) 22:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per all of above. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 12:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Why isn't Edmonton Oilers roster widely deployed to the individual players? --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 12:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete unused and redundant template. Carlosguitar 05:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Pile-on Delete- NRV. And reasons previously stated. Dfrg.msc 07:57, 28 May 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.