Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 October 3

October 3 edit

Template:World Championship Wrestling 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).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2019 October 20. Primefac (talk) 13:58, 20 October 2019 (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).

Template:Former WWE Championships 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).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2019 October 20. Primefac (talk) 13:58, 20 October 2019 (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).

Template:2017–18 Isle of Man Football League Premier League table 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).

The result of the discussion was speedy delete. I see no reason to hold up a purely administrative action, particularly with two additional editors supporting deletion. We have already had multiple tranches of these come through with no objection, it is unclear how one could be raised for any of these now unused and replaced templates. Fenix down (talk) 12:19, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unused after being merged with the parent article (with attribution) per consensus at WT:FOOTY. Frietjes (talk) 14:13, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 09:06, 7 October 2019 (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).

Template:WikiProject Lemony Snicket 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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Reasonable argument, no opposition. Primefac (talk) 13:52, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest deletion after replacement with WikiProject novels banner with Lemony Snicket taskforce. This banner doesn't have assessment options resulting in articles tagged with this banner not being categorized properly. --Trialpears (talk) 09:23, 3 October 2019 (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).

Template:WikiProject Baronetcies 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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Primefac (talk) 13:56, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest deletion after replacement with the {{WikiProject Biography}} banner with Peerage and Baronetage taskforce. This banner doesn't have assessment options resulting in articles tagged with this banner not being categorized properly. Only 5 transclusions. --Trialpears (talk) 09:18, 3 October 2019 (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).