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) 04:39, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Now that Template:Wikify is deprecated, this template (a similar template that goes on talk pages) is not really needed? It is only used on 20 talk pages, and is inferior to all the specific templates we use, and also inferior to WikiProject Wikify's "How to wikify". Del_♉sion23 (talk) 20:46, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• ((wikify)) was deleted on the grounds that the issues present were too vague and minor to warrant an articlespace cleanup tag. They're still worth bringing up on the talk page. Nevertheless, if there are only 20 transclusions it can't be that popular. Ideally someone would fix the issues in those twenty pages and then delete this once it was no longer used. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:48, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've gone through them all and either removed ones that no longer apply or replaced them with article-space templates. It seems the peak usage of the template was in 2006–07, by a select few editors. Once the problem was fixed, the template remained. Thus most of the templates were simply stating that the article had been wikified at some point. It seemed to be more of an editor's check list rather than a tag saying "please come and wikify this". The template was very underused and has now been improved upon. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 16:15, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• delete. Frietjes (talk) 20:04, 23 January 2013 (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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:38, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Orhan Gencebay (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Two year old template for only two articles and a bunch of red links. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 19:46, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• delete. Frietjes (talk) 20:03, 23 January 2013 (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, as unused and redundant. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:37, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:New Breed track listing (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Take a Deeper Look track listing (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused templates, limited navigation, better served by the navboxes ((Jay Park)) and ((Jay Park singles)) --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 19:08, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• delete. Frietjes (talk) 20:03, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• keep. How are these template's meant to be used anyway? Just unknown (talk) 20:11, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you create them just for the heck of it? They contain minimal links and all of those are already in the singles template. A meaningful track list template works when all or nearly all of the songs on an album have articles. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 20:55, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • A link to official documentation on how the templates are meant to be used would more more useful than your useless description of track listing templates. Just unknown (talk) 20:19, 24 January 2013 (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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:35, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Florida High School Athletic Association (FHSAA) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

effectively links two articles, since the individual sports pages are not going to have a high school athletic association template at the bottom. the list of sports is already in the article. Frietjes (talk) 15:30, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, not to mention notability concerns. Secret ^account 04:40, 30 January 2013 (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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:33, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Interblock Ljubljana squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Association football club do not have a senior team anymore, only youth selections are still active. Matej1234 14:19, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• delete. Frietjes (talk) 20:03, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 00:38, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – The club is now a youth team therefore the template serves no purpose as all the players are non notable & don't have articles, so there is no viable wikilinks for the template to navigate between. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 01:21, 30 January 2013 (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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:32, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NK Nafta Lendava squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Association football club was dissolved in 2012, no need for the current squad template anymore. Matej1234 14:10, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• delete. Frietjes (talk) 20:03, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 00:39, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – The club no longer exists therefore the template serves no purpose as there is no players to navigate between. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 01:18, 30 January 2013 (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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:42, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Danny Steinmann (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:NENAN, directed only 3 films. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 08:50, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• keep, useful navigation. Frietjes (talk) 20:02, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Tell me how linking a whopping three articles is "useful" navigation. Precedent, and the number of people who use WP:NENAN as an argument, say otherwise. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:40, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I count four articles, not three. Frietjes (talk) 15:24, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Still short of WP:NENAN. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:43, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• keep WP:NENAN is an essay and not policy. WP:ANOEP is as valid and argues the other way. Op47 (talk) 14:01, 26 January 2013 (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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:43, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Matt Reeves (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:NENAN. Directed only three films. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 08:49, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• keep, useful navigation. Frietjes (talk) 20:02, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• keep WP:NENAN is an essay and not policy. WP:ANOEP is as valid and argues the other way. Op47 (talk) 14:01, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep He is attached to Dawn of the Planet of the Apes which will be his fourth film and eough for a template.--TheMovieBuff (talk) 17:35, 26 January 2013 (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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:43, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Charles Stone III (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:NENAN. Directed only 3 films. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 08:41, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• keep, useful navigation. Frietjes (talk) 20:02, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• keep WP:NENAN is an essay and not policy. WP:ANOEP is as valid and argues the other way. Op47 (talk) 14:01, 26 January 2013 (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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:43, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wayne Kramer (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:NENAN, did only four films. And one of the four doesn't seem notable, so I prodded it it's been redirected. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 08:38, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• keep, but no need for per decade grouping. Frietjes (talk) 20:01, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• keep WP:NENAN is an essay and not policy. WP:ANOEP is as valid and argues the other way. Op47 (talk) 14:01, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and agree with Frietjes.--TheMovieBuff (talk) 17:32, 26 January 2013 (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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:43, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mark Dindal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:NENAN. Directed only three films, two from the same studio. No direction work since 2005, so I don't think the template will expand. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:28, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• keep, useful navigation. Frietjes (talk) 20:00, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• keep WP:NENAN is an essay and not policy. WP:ANOEP is as valid and argues the other way. Op47 (talk) 14:01, 26 January 2013 (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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:31, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The Continental League of Professional Baseball Clubs (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template too broad for a league that never came to play, the subject is notable but this template is riddled with WP:NOR considering nothing was never set (rumors and such). Secret ^account 04:14, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• delete. Frietjes (talk) 20:00, 23 January 2013 (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.