Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 September 29



Template:Interests

 * 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 speedy delete per CSD G2. IronGargoyle 23:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Very odd template that's transcluded one time on a very odd page. --MZMcBride 22:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. In their defense, they are a school project learning to work on wikipedia. They were probably just experimenting with the template namespace. J- ſtan TalkContribs 01:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete per WP:SD - Test page. Carlosguitar 02:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete Test page, no uses in articles. •Malinaccier•  T / C  22:49, 30 September 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:Last-taf

 * 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. mattbr 08:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Tagged as speedy deletion with rationale "Speedy deletion - made redundant months ago, no longer needed". Maybe it is obsolete, but that's not a reason for speedy deletion.. Pascal.Tesson 21:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * And keeping it serves what purpose, exactly? – – Gurch 22:00, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Unless I'm missing something, none (TfD will, one hopes, clarify that issue), but Pascal is quite right that, except to the extent that G5 might apply, it is, inasmuch as the criteria for speedy deletion are to be narrowly construed and as we err always on the side of not speedying, appropriate that the issue be disposed of here rather than through speedy. Joe 23:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * G5? I don't recall Polaris999 ever being banned – – Gurch 10:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Eh, I meant G6; thanks for catching that. Joe 16:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete unused, seems to be obsolete. Carlosguitar 02:13, 30 September 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.

PATH service 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 delete all. mattbr 08:46, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

These templates are nothing more than single piped links. I have subst'd them all into the one article in which they were being used, and there is no longer any reason to have them. – Dream out loud (talk) 15:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete all unused, unhelpful and subst'd. Carlosguitar 02:15, 30 September 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:FOREX

 * 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 Was redirected to the replacement template by Ronnotel. Mike Peel 19:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

This template has been superseded by Template:Foreign Exchange. It has been put up for speedy deletion both on its talk page as well as on WP:FINANCE. There are no articles that link to this template. — Finnancier 14:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect. I've redirected this to Template:Foreign Exchange. Ronnotel 13:21, 30 September 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:Img-Link



 * 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 speedy deleted, by request of creator. BanyanTree 23:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

This appears to be an attempt at the deprecated Template:Click, but is only used on one template and one article, as it apparently doesn't work yet, and the instructions are in Italian. Its other uses are entirely in the userspace of the creator. — BanyanTree 13:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - Felipe C.S ( talk ) 16:33, 29 September 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:Meta historical project

 * 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 Keep. Mike Peel 19:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)



Long unused. It baffles me why we would want to export old pages anyway, rather than just tagging them as historical and preserving them, or deleting them if they're completely useless 86.133.139.4 11:20, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep (as the creator). Tagging a page as historical is not very useful; the undocumented historical significance is eventually forgotten, until it's only kept around because it's some page somebody tagged long ago. The Meta project means "historical" as important to the development of the Wikimedia Foundation and its projects, not any page (including trivial rejected proposals) tagged with . The Meta Historical project collects such historical pages and documents them; for example, see International logo contest (and the link to m:Meta:Historical/Logo history). Exporting the page does not delete it from Wikipedia; rather, it then exists on both wikis, with a link from the Wikipedia page to the documented version. — {admin} Pathoschild 16:39:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You mean it would exist on both wikis, had anyone ever actually used this template? – – Gurch 22:00, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, it has been used in the past. Once the page is imported, there's no longer any reason to keep this template on the page. — {admin} Pathoschild 17:35:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep since there is a rational use, current or intended.DGG (talk) 04:12, 30 September 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.