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. Ruslik_Zero 19:46, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Perserang Serang Managers (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template for a Indonesian football team which doesn't even have an article (it was deleted on 27 September 2010 for being a hoax); this template is full of 100% erroneous information as well i.e. none of the managers mentioned have managed this team!. GiantSnowman 22:53, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 22:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, speedy if possible, obviously a hoax. Can CSD G3 be applied to templates? It says all namespaces, so I'm guessing it probably can. Alzarian16 (talk) 23:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Namespace is defined as "articles, redirects, user pages, talk pages, files, etc." - no mention of templates, which are a fairly big part of Wikipedia...GiantSnowman 23:35, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

G# CSD criteria apply to all namespaces (they are general criteria after all) ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 14:20, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete: Blatant hoax. —Half Price 15:35, 27 October 2010 (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 keep (Wikipedia:Sandbox/Word Association restored) Peter Karlsen (talk) 03:39, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Word Association (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Essentially per rationale at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Sandbox/test. See also Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:VeryPunny/My Custom Word Association Games. -- Cirt (talk) 12:56, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2010_October_25#Wikipedia:Sandbox/Word_Association/Ultra_Game. Simply south (talk) 16:41, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• speedy keep pending the outcome of the Deletion Review linked above. If that results in the continued deletion of the WA pages then the template can be speedily deleted per WP:CSD#G8. However if the deletion review results in the reinstatement of the pages, then the template can be renominated with an actual rationale ("useless" doesn't cut the mustard) if desired. Thryduulf (talk) 17:05, 25 October 2010 (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. The main purpose of any navbox is to help with navigation among articles. The present navbox does not serve this purpose. Ruslik_Zero 19:54, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Saint Francis Cougars football coach navbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A single-item navbox, not needed now and (probably) until the team has had 3 or more coaches. The information in the articles Saint Francis Cougars and Kevin Donley suggests that Donley has been the SFC football team's only coach since it was created in 1998. (Creator notified using Template:Tfdnotice) -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 06:16, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• DELETE/DON'T DELETE. You are correct, sir. Donley is the only coach USF football has ever had. For consistency with other coaches/schools, this nav box was created. It is here for now, though the length of time before we see another coach (or 2-3 more as you suggest) is not in the forseeable future. I would vote for keeping the navbox, but will yield to the vote of the consensus of those who have opinions on this matter. Jlhcpa (talk) 21:57, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for explaining your reason for creating the navbox. I was not aware that every football coach has a template for each school at which he or she coached. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 22:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep admittedly, it looks silly. It's in line with every other college football coach and would be missing if it was not present. While normally we don't like to have "navboxes" for one item, in this case there is grounds for an exception.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Doesn't the infobox, which lists all the schools at which Donley coached, serve that function better than the navbox? The navbox does not (because of the unique circumstances) help with navigation or offer the reader any new information, and it seems to serve (at this time) essentially as a placeholder. If the template is deleted, I realize that it would need to be recreated sometime in the future (in light of the clarification that you and Jlhcpa offered, probably as soon as Donley is succeeded); then again, it may be years before that happens. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 22:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  FYI take a look at Harold Elliott for a sample coach of multiple programs and the navboxes.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:04, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• delete There may one day be a need for such a navbox but as it is it serves no purpose. The point of a navbox but with one entry the link in it is only ever dead. Someone can infer from that he is the only one to hold that position but that's expressed in plain language at the top of the article. It's especially annoying as it's by default collapsed (as it should be when there's a stack of boxes), so a reader has to expand it to find it contains no navigable links. It can be recreated if and when there's more than one article to go in it.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 23:23, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not every page needs a navbox and looking at Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Coach Navboxes/NAIA it seems that the majority of college football teams don't have one for their coaches. --Salix (talk): 13:45, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment that's because there aren't any coach articles for those schools, not because there are coach articles without navboxes.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:55, 26 October 2010 (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. Airplaneman ✈ 20:24, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unnecessary template. Currently, there is Template:Hellraiser, which already includes any character with its own article. Any other character related to the Cenobites, which is likely to be related to the Hellraiser franchise, that is notable enough to have its own article would be listed on the Hellraiser template. In addition, the Cenobite template appears to be primarily redlinks of characters probably not notable enough for their own page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. In addition there is ((Tortured Souls)), which already covers the "other" characters. Agree that this navbox adds nothing and is redundant to others. PC78 (talk) 11:31, 26 October 2010 (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.