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 keep. JPG-GR (talk) 20:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:UK Docks (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused/abandoned template. Only two edits back in August. Only linked from one article. Simple Bob (talk) 12:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, just needs work, could be very handy when finished. AJUK ^Talk!! 20:57, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As the author you would say that! --Simple Bob (talk) 22:19, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. On this surface this seems to be a reasonable navigation box. Is it not used on more articles because there have been attempts to place it that were rejected, or has there simply not been much effort to use it? --RL0919 (talk) 20:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:24, 30 October 2009 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 no consensus, defaults to keep. JPG-GR (talk) 20:09, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Preacher (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not enough relevant links for a template. Marcus Brute (talk) 01:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete Has potential, but many articles on the topic area are yet to be written. For now, a navigational template seems redundant to the infobox and thus premature.  Skomorokh, barbarian  14:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. A couple of the links are dubious (God?), but subtracting those it just barely has enough links to make a useful navbox. --RL0919 (talk) 01:08, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• This isn't a valuable navigational aid. Pages which feature it are likely to link inline to every relevant subject anyway. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JPG-GR (talk) 05:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The Preacher is notable, and I realize that a link to GOD looks strange, but he IS a character in "Preacher" _{Naluboutes,Nalubotes}^{Aeria Gloris,Aeria Gloris} 17:41, 5 November 2009 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

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. Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 15:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Pasig City (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The links are not exclusive to Pasig City and is misleading. --Scorpion prinz ^{(Talk | contribs)} 01:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Only used on one page. Not useful as a template. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:58, 6 November 2009 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.