Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 February 25



Template:PD-US-LOC

 * 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 Procedural Close There is no valid reason for deletion here, despite the nominator's mistaken impression that there is. The reason for deleting the similarly-named PD-LOC was that it was "deprecated" and "has now been removed from all usages"; neither of those are currently the case for this template. The nominator has also asserted that this is "essentially the same template" as PD-LOC, but this is clearly incorrect: This template says "This image is specifically listed as PD-US-not renewed by the LOC" (and we may as well trust the LOC), while PD-LOC said "We assume this is PD because it's on the LOC website" (which is not necessarily a valid assumption). Rather than prolong the pain, let's just close this misbegotten nomination. Should a valid reason for deletion arise in the future, such as the actual deprecation of this template and replacement of all uses, it can be renominated then. Anomie⚔ 19:31, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * PD-US-LOC

Recreation of previously-deleted material - see Templates for deletion/Log/2007 March 14. Kelly hi! 05:39, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment PD-US-LOC was created 04:36, 3 January 2006 and has not been deleted. As such it predates the deletion of PD-LOC but I cannot see when that was created. The TfD linked above resulted in keep but a later one was delete, Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_May_15. There may be a reason for deletion but recreation is not it. Thincat (talk) 13:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Template:PD-LOC was created on 20:45, 27 July 2006. Anomie⚔ 16:15, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Why is this template nominated for deletion? --DThomsen8 (talk) 16:53, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The same rationale applies to this template as to PD-US-LOC, as it is essentially the same template with a different name. Kelly  hi! 17:38, 25 February 2012 (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 Smashup

 * 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) 19:33, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The Smashup

only one album. Frietjes (talk) 00:55, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete as the band doesn't even seem notable and this navigates nothing as it is — two articles isn't enough. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:55, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment The band seems notable; I don't really have an opinion about whether the template is needed or not, but the issue should not be predicated on lack of notability. Chubbles (talk) 02:25, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Amended. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 06:57, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete as its unclear what the template adds. The one link is a redirect back to the band's page. Aslbsl (talk) 02:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per the above. Template contains only a link to the band's main page and a redirect; does not seem needed at this time.  Gongshow  Talk 04:49, 2 March 2012 (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.