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) 19:25, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Few references exist (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

There is no way to tell for certain if few references exist. References can easily be offline and their existence unknown to a general editor. If the article is under-referenced, just tag it with ((refimprove)); if you have suspicion that few sources do exist — a.) how can you even prove that there are few sources?, and b.) why not just tag it with ((notability))? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:54, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete after replacement with ((refimprove)) or a more suitable template - nominator's reasoning makes sense to me. -PC-XT+ 05:28, 6 July 2013 (UTC) Manual revision per Debresser, below, sounds good to me. -PC-XT+ 23:02, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "Delete per nominator. Do not replace with other template automatically, only if manual revision shows that such would be appropriate. Debresser (talk) 18:04, 6 July 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) 19:25, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:1911 POV (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not a widespread problem anymore. Only two transclusions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:48, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete after replacement with ((Update-EB)) or a more suitable template, or simply a note on each talk page (or even the edit summary) that the template was removed, but may still apply -PC-XT+ 05:25, 6 July 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 relisted on Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 July 14. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:26, 14 July 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 archive Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:20, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cite fast (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

Template:Fcite book (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Fcite fast (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Fcite journal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Fcite web (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

Per this discussion, it was decided to move ((cite quick)). These are related test templates that are unused and should be moved as well.  Gadget850 ^talk 11:53, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• move and mark historical, or simply delete. Frietjes (talk) 20:15, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• move as per ((Cite quick)). Although they've not been (re-) discovered by editors as that had while in template space there's always that possibility, especially months from now when we've all forgotten about them. Better to archive them now.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 23:38, 5 July 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 relisted on Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 July 14. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:20, 14 July 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 relisting on Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 July 14. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:15, 14 July 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 relisted on Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 July 14. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:14, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Clarifyref2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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) 00:06, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rob Letterman (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:NENAN. Director has only three films, two from the same studio, meaning that this has only one unique link not already covered by ((DreamWorks animated films)). Therefore, it serves no purpose. Last two TFDs both closed as "no consensus", with most voters saying "it's useful" but failing to explain why. If there is only one link not already used by another template, then how is this useful navigation? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:02, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• keep for now, it looks like there is a fourth film coming in 2014. Frietjes (talk) 20:18, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Then there's no harm in deleting until then. The wheels can turn really slow in Hollywood, so there's no guarantee that said film will even come to be. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:07, 6 July 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) 00:03, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Automatic Loveletter (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Fails WP:NENAN with only 4 relevant links, (Second nomination, as the first one disappeared into thin air) The Banner talk 23:05, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Now it has 5 link, and therefore WP:NENAN doesn't apply. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 13:11, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant, that additional article consisting of two sentences and three maintenance templates. Really convincing. The Banner talk 16:59, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Delete to reduce the proliferation of un-needed, poorly-used, un-used, or otherwise ill-considered templates.
  -- Yellowdesk (talk) 21:07, 4 July 2013 (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) 00:26, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I boldly redirected Tommy Simms, since it was three maintenance templates, one sentence, and zero assertation of notability. This now leaves only four links. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:55, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete With only two albums, navigation amongst the listed articles is not aided by the existence of the navbox since one can link to and from those articles without it. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 18:23, 10 July 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 to delete. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:01, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox historic subdivision (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to ((Infobox settlement)) or ((Infobox former subdivision)). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:48, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. As far as I can see this infobox was designed specifically for former British subdivisions. You may change its name to, e.g., "Infobox UK historic subdivision" if you wish. Also, it's used in over 600 articles. Not to mention that ((Infobox settlement)) and ((Infobox former subdivision)) are fairly inadequate substitutes. --5.70.140.73 (talk) 09:55, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The UK-specific application to UK subdivisions is not a reason to keep. 600+ transclusions is not a reason to keep. Which leaves only your "fairly inadequate substitutes" claim. How so? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:22, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, the former is obviously intended for settlements, which are not necessarily subdivisions. In fact, there are no settlements among the articles this template is used in. The latter looks like being about country-like subnational divisions with many parameters redundant in the realia of Britain. However, if you make sure that all 600+ infobox usages are neatly substituted I won't oppose deletion. --5.70.140.73 (talk) 10:45, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • ((Infobox settlement)) is, as its documentation makes clear, "for human settlements (cities, towns, villages, communities) as well as other administrative districts, counties, provinces, etcetera - in fact, any subdivision below the level of a country". Parameters are optional, so any that are redundant need not be used. Of course, instances would be substituted before the nominated template is deleted. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:33, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose pending a demonstration of the redundancy either through a sample conversion. renaming and refactoring it would be a good idea if conversion is too complicated, or results in too many blank parameters (which frequently cannot be safely parsed for metadata). Frietjes (talk) 15:33, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There will need to be a small number of fields merged into ((Infobox settlement)) (it has |established_date= but not |disestablished_date=) or discarded (do we need multiple historic population figures? We don't have them for existing settlements) before a full conversion can be made. This is usual in such cases, as you are no doubt aware. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:45, 27 June 2013 (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) 00:25, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Due to it's widespread usage and because I don't see why the change needs to take place. It would involve quite a lot of effort with little benefit. If you really want it deleted though I would suggest changing all the current use of the infobox to the ones you think are appropriate and then putting the template up for deletion afterwards. Eopsid (talk) 12:06, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Number of transclusions is not a reason to keep; and this is a proposal to replace all instances and then delete. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:33, 10 July 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 relisted on Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 July 14. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:59, 13 July 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 merge, but since ((Infobox landform)) was never tagged, let me know if there is any backlash to merged parameters, and I will reopen the discussion. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:57, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox cape (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to ((infobox settlement)) or possibly ((Infobox geologic feature)) ((Infobox landform)). Only 19 transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:33, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• perhaps ((Infobox landform)), but certainly not a settlement. Frietjes (talk) 17:48, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • ((Infobox geologic feature)) redirects to ((Infobox landform)); duly modified. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:54, 26 June 2013 (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) 00:20, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• There are some parameters on ((Infobox cape)) that do not appear on ((Infobox landform)) (or at least the documentation of each), namely: map_size, country, water_bodies, area, area_footnotes, image_size, and references (with "caption" being ambiguous). I have no objection to merging, as long as this information is carried over into the new format (assuming these parameters are actually use anywhere). I guess it also makes sense to set type="cape" with link to Cape (geography). -- Beland (talk) 20:33, 10 July 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) 23:51, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WAFF Championship, Arab Nations Cup are regional tournaments only. Nehru Cup is a friendly tournament. So they are unnecessary. Banhtrung1 (talk) 03:36, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Lebanon squad 2012 West Asian Football Federation Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Lebanon squad 1998 Arab Nations Cup (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Lebanon squad 2002 Arab Nations Cup (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Lebanon squad 2002 West Asian Football Federation Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Lebanon squad 2009 Nehru Cup (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

• Delete: They are not notable. Sawol (talk) 10:40, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 10:46, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - They are regional and friendly competitions only. — 113.23.3.108 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 06:20, 8 July 2013 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]
• Delete - minor, minor tournaments, they do not merit squad navboxes. GiantSnowman 11:21, 8 July 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.