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 per prior consensus concerning navboxes with fewer than four entries. I will add the links to the see also section, and it can certainly be revived if more notable articles are written. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:45, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Tsukasa Fushimi (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template currently links to two articles, Oreimo, and its associated episode list already linked on that article. The author himself doesn't have an article, and even if he did, the author's three other works in the template either don't have articles (Jūsanbanme no Alice and Nekosis) or are currently up for deletion for being non-notable (Ero Manga Sensei). Of these works, it is unlikely at this time the former two would get articles, and the latter may not achieve independent notability for years to come. So I believe this template should be deleted as being redundant to what is already available in the Oreimo article. 十八 22:29, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I find this to be quite useful. I didn't know this author had other works and I'm sure many others didn't as well, therefore even if no articles exist on Wikipedia (besides Oreimo}, they can conduct a quick Google search for information having been sparked by the titles; which are not mentioned anywhere else on Wikipedia and even the author's ANN page doesnt list his other works. Before you say it, there is no way people would be bothered to search his other titles if they had no prior knowledge of them. In addition to ANN not being reliable—the fact remains that it does exist and people do use it. The fact that the template only has links to Oreimo-related article and are redundant merely suggests that something is severely wrong with templates across Wikipedia filled with this type of redundancy. Where is the rule that says a template cannot have mentions of other would-be/can-be articles when those articles don't exist on here yet? —KirtZ^Message 08:30, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The whole point of a template is to aid in navigation between already existing articles on Wikipedia (WP:EXISTING: Unlinked text should be avoided.), not to be an index of articles that don't exist. Any article that is put in a template that has not yet been created is presumed to eventually be created so as to fulfill the purpose of the navbox (short for navigation box, not index box), but the first two works alone are very unlikely to ever be notable in their own right to get articles, and EMS is likely going to be deleted soon, too. So this navbox, as it currently stands, is wholly redundant to the links present in Oreimo and its episode list which link to each other already.--十八 23:04, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• merge to Tsukasa Fushimi and delete. Frietjes (talk) 17:23, 23 November 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) 04:09, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cite isbn/978480531098 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only used in one article, can be easily transcluded The Banner talk 22:03, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Planning to use it in several ukiyo-e-related articles (such as woodblock printing in Japan). The template hasn't even been there for 24 hours—what exactly is the rush? Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:08, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, I don't see the benefit of this compared to just copy-pasting the source where it's needed, and it makes the wikicode of the source less accessible to other users.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 03:30, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Underlying lk: Then you're arguing against ((cite isbn)), not against this template, and are therefore !voting in the wrong forum. You do realize that this is one of six hundred such templates generated by ((cite isbn)), which itself is one of six such identifier-based templates? Curly Turkey (gobble) 04:37, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see, you're right about that.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 07:32, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Templates are supposed to me used in multiple articles. This one was, at the moment of nomination, used in just one article. Your spectacular list of similar links revealed more cases like this. The template itself states The purpose of this template is to help managing references to ISBN books on many different articles.. "Many different articles" is something different than 1 or 2 articles, sorry. The Banner talk 00:58, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• keep, not orphaned, and part of the ((cite isbn)) system. Frietjes (talk) 16:34, 16 November 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) 04:06, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:African cinema (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Asian cinema (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:East Asian cinema (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:European cinema (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Latin American cinema (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:North American cinema (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Oceanian cinema (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Southeast Asian cinema (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:West Asian cinema (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

These navigational sidebars are currently used along with the Template:World cinema navbox, and there are only a handful of pages where one of the sidebars is transcluded but do not also transclude the navbox (see this CatScan query for evidence), so they could be deleted as redundant to the more inclusive template. eh bien mon prince (talk) 02:54, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, redundant navigation. Frietjes (talk) 01:03, 19 November 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.