Template talk:rndc

The following information passed a request for deletion.

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

---

Unused, which is logical because we always delete copyright violations and restore only the good versions when there are some. Anywhere that this can be used? Mglovesfun (talk) 11:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I've used this several times when I saw a copyvio definition: I blank the definition and add this template. Obviously, the template doesn't last long (only until a new definition is added), which is why it's unused.​—msh210℠ 17:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Didn't think of that. I have seen it used once, but the article was then deleted about a minute later. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Kept. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

RFDO discussion: January–May 2016

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Others (permalink).

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

---

Template:rndc

Template:copyvio

Hasn't been used for quite a while, as far as I know. Not unuseful per se, but there isn't much point to it either. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:37, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Delete, by the way it passed RFDO because only two people commented some years ago. It is pointless. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:27, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I'd make the same argument I'd make then; copyright violations are always deleted. When there's an entry to go back to, we go back to that. Since a red link is better than a blue link to an empty page, there is no scenario where this template should be used. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:39, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Delete per my comments on Talk:noded. - -sche (discuss) 23:03, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Deleted. - -sche (discuss) 23:12, 2 May 2016 (UTC)