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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:01, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cleanup-spam (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

Propose merging Template:Cleanup-spam with Template:Advert.
Although some have argued that ((advert)) is designed to deal with content that is written with the "tone" of an advertisement, this template argues that it contains "promotional material and other spam", such as inappropriate external links.

However, if it is written like promotional material, it is promotional material. Aside from the slightly different wording, these two templates essentially have the same purpose. I suggest that these two templates be merged with the wording:

"This article is written like an advertisement. Please help improve the article by removing promotional language and inappropriate external links, and adding encyclopedic content written from a neutral point of view."

This covers all the potential scenarios for these two templates together. If it is just links that are the problem, ((External links)) covers it. ViperSnake151  Talk  19:11, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. While the two templates say different things, they're close enough in functionality that we can easily write something that would cover both scenarios; your wording works, and it wouldn't be hard to replace it if someone objected. Redirect one template to the other, add the new text to the target template, and we're done. Nyttend (talk) 21:56, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom and Nyttend —PC-XT+ 00:02, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Coming here from an article (GNU Octave) where this was added although the EL tag would have been more appropriate, this merger seems like a good solution. I would caution against automatically re-tagging the articles after this merge is done because this template appears to have been a union of the other two (Advert and EL), so the problem in each article where this template appears cannot be discerned (and the right [sub]tag cannot be chosen) automatically by a program... 86.121.137.150 (talk) 23:34, 16 December 2014 (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) 05:37, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Evolution (professional wrestling) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Same as the Shield. Not enought entries, only 4 wrestlers. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:57, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete per precedent, though this does actually navigate a bit, and I nearly said weak keep —PC-XT+ 01:15, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Not enough info or anything to keep. Stephen"Zap" (talk) 23:23, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It may help a little with navigation, but there's emphasis on little for a reason. I don't think there's enough here to make it worth keeping.LM2000 (talk) 07:04, 17 December 2014 (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) 00:07, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Spain Squad 1999 UEFA Futsal Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Yugoslavia Squad 1999 UEFA Futsal Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Poland Squad 2001 UEFA Futsal Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Russia Squad 2003 UEFA Futsal Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Spain Squad 2003 UEFA Futsal Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Portugal Squad 2003 UEFA Futsal Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Russia Squad 2005 UEFA Futsal Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Czech Republic Squad 2005 UEFA Futsal Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Portugal Squad 2005 UEFA Futsal Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Ukraine Squad 2005 UEFA Futsal Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Hungary Squad 2005 UEFA Futsal Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Czech Republic Squad 2007 UEFA Futsal Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Italy Squad 2007 UEFA Futsal Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Portugal Squad 2007 UEFA Futsal Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Romania Squad 2007 UEFA Futsal Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Russia Squad 2007 UEFA Futsal Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Serbia Squad 2007 UEFA Futsal Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Ukraine Squad 2007 UEFA Futsal Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Azerbaijan Squad 2010 UEFA Futsal Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Belarus Squad 2010 UEFA Futsal Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Belgium Squad 2010 UEFA Futsal Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Czech Republic Squad 2010 UEFA Futsal Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Hungary Squad 2010 UEFA Futsal Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Italy Squad 2010 UEFA Futsal Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Portugal Squad 2010 UEFA Futsal Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Russia Squad 2010 UEFA Futsal Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Serbia Squad 2010 UEFA Futsal Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Ukraine Squad 2010 UEFA Futsal Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

non-championship-winning squads. Frietjes (talk) 18:02, 8 December 2014 (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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:28, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Left Behind (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Left Behind Characters (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Left Behind with Template:Left Behind Characters.
very few characters still have independent articles, so it makes sense to merge the links to the characters into the main template. Frietjes (talk) 17:46, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom —PC-XT+ 01:36, 9 December 2014 (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) 05:23, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:High School DxD (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

With only three sub-lists this template isn't really necessary. The characters, light novels and episode lists can all be comfortably accessed from the main High School DxD article. KirtZJ (talk) 15:07, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as unnecessary —PC-XT+ 01:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• delete Frietjes (talk) 00:18, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - With the few articles linked to it, all of which are already easily accessed from the main article, this isn't really needed anymore. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:59, 18 December 2014 (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. Reywas92^Talk 02:04, 2 January 2015 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Template:Infobox academic division (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) (77 6 16 transclusions)¹

Template:Infobox university (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) (19,369 transclusions)

Propose merging Template:Infobox academic division with Template:Infobox university.
A previous TfD to replace Academic Division after replacing instances with the more generic template closed as "no consensus", because some people preferred to insist on a formal merge proposal rather than discuss the merits of the template in question.

It is redundant to the generic template (which already serves for faculties, schools, colleges, and other types of parts of universities, which currently use the AD template).

The parameters unique to the AD template are |canton=, |prefecture=, |region= (the documentation of the University template says |province= is for "all other administrative subdivisions"), |alumni=, and |symbol= (the latter pair are not specific to academic divisions, and may apply to any University or sub-set of one).

Here is an example replacement. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:21, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

¹I have replaced the transclusions of the AD template which do not use the parameters listed above. Further investigation shows that |symbol= is unused. |alumni= is used in the remaining six transclusions, but its meaning is not clear (one is footnoted "The number of living alumni as of the year 2012"; others not, and most are uncited). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:52, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Please use |type=sidebar with ((Tfm)) when nominating infoboxes in the future. 31.153.43.216 (talk) 17:01, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Keeping it in Infobox academic division gives a better semantic meaning. – nafSadh did say 02:21, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. Although semantically these infoboxes would appear to have different functions, the nomination shows that they have essentially the same parameters and can thus be merged painlessly. Infobox academic division should be maintained as a redirect to Infobox university. — This, that and the other (talk) 03:45, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per my !vote in the previous discussion (keeping this as a redirect) —PC-XT+ 04:05, 10 December 2014 (UTC) 04:09, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per TTO, the name difference is no reason for keeping a template that shares many parameters with university and is substantially a recent fork of the earlier template.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 00:39, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Andy. This is similar to ((Infobox politician)). Would make things less confusing. Bgwhite (talk) 07:57, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I created this specifically for its semantic value, but the intention was to eventually extend the template with other details specific to such divisions (which I've yet to consider or enumerate, unfortunately). My intention was to merge university and college infoboxes to ((infobox university)) (as has already been done with some infoboxes), and also to merge infoboxes for all academic divisions (medical and law schools, faculties, departments, etc.) to ((Infobox academic division)), which I began with the creation of these template redirects. Mindmatrix 17:32, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There were more "parts of university" using ((infobox university)) than the nominated template, even before its nomination. The semantic value can be derived from the presence and contents of |parent=. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:28, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Why did you replace all uses of this template before resolution of this discussion? The point of such discussions is to come to a consensus, then act on that consensus, not to preemptively act on a proposal then have to undo such changes if consensus doesn't agree with that proposal. Mindmatrix 17:32, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nobody did. However, since the template is demonstrably redundant, many instances were replaced with a more suitable, generic template. The existence of a TfD does not preclude this. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:28, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Aside: infoboxes in general could benefit from separating location-related info into a separate template or module to deal with naming of subnational jurisdictions (that is, whether to use state, province, canton, prefecture, etc.) and their display in the infobox. Mindmatrix 17:32, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose merger I have to agree with our colleagues who believe that usability trumps minor technical issues or unnecessary consistency. I understand how the templates overlap but it seems like it's much more important to ensure they remain useable by editors than to combine them simply because they can be combined. ElKevbo (talk) 23:39, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In what way do you believe that the more generic template less usable? Indeed, the reverse is true; the nominated template's only unique field in use has such poor usability that no-one seems to know what it is for. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:01, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Not enough valid arguments showing reason to merge. --NotWillyWonka (talk) 00:40, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The valid argument is that the template is redundant to another; this has been demonstrated unequivocally. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:01, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose merge per ElKevbo's rationale above. This is more template merging for the sake of template merging. Sometimes a specifically tailored template is superior to a generic one-size-fits-all model. The nominator might receive less opposition and save himself a great of time and aggravation if he would simply run such proposals by the relevant WikiProjects before dropping them here at TfD -- he might even receive some helpful advice as to what could be easily and appropriately merged from the viewpoint of editors who use the templates on a regular basis. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:17, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dirtlawyer1's comments make no points in favour of keeping two templates; why a template currently used in only six articles is supposedly needed, nor why the more generic one is "superior" to the one which works in over nineteen thousand other cases. His procedural comments seem to be overspill from another discussion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:18, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hey, Andy: guess again. I'm a long-time member of WikiProject Universities. Please stop trying to discredit other editors who oppose your proposed deletions and merges. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:03, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your membership of that project does not refute my point. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:23, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • And what is your "point," Andy? I found this TfD discussion because I keep Infobox university on my watch list to prevent tampering by vandals and ill-advised changes by inexperienced editors. You have a well-established pattern/bias of always wanting to consolidate/merge templates into larger, multi-purpose, one-size-fits-all master templates, sometimes without understanding the purposes and uses of those templates; pointing that out is fair game. I happen to believe that in many instances, smaller, more specialized templates that are tailored to their specific uses are often easier to use and don't create problems of inexperienced editors using inappropriate template options. You clearly have a different opinion, but my opinion is no less valid than yours, and your compulsive need to answer every !vote and opinion opposed to your merge proposals does not advance your TfD proposals more often than not. More is sometimes less, a lesson you would do well to absorb in these discussions. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:57, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's only used on six articles because you replaced all other uses of this template before resolution of this discussion, as I noted in a comment above. This is one of the primary reasons I objected to replacement before resolution, because it could then be used to skew the discussion by stating how few articles use it. Mindmatrix 22:24, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • On the contrary, such replacement is evidence to the assertion that the template is redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:23, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Unhelpful, get the ugly spam off of pages RoyalMate1 12:54, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You appear to be commenting on the TfD notification, not the proposal to merge and do away with the redundant template. Do you have a view on that? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:51, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Yes, I oppose the merger, it seems to be independent enough to not warrant a redundancy in terms of templates. RoyalMate1 03:56, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong oppose Wish I'd known about the academic division infobox earlier, it would be very useful on some of the articles I edit. I've found infoboxes that attempt to be "jack of all trades" to be overstuffed with criteria and virtually unusable. Universities and university divisions are different animals with markedly different identifying information; keeping the templates separate allows for this and is conducive to editing. I agree with others above that this seems to be template merging for its own sake. --TorriTorri(^talk/_contribs) 21:17, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Torritorri: How is ((Infobox university)) not useful for your purpose? What parameters for "markedly different identifying information" are needed? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:19, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This merger does not seem reasonable simply because academic divisions are different from universities, and while currently the infoboxes are similar, a better solution would be to flesh out the academic divisions infobox so that it could be used on pertinent articles to provides more specificity. VivaLaPandaz (talk) 23:19, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "academic divisions are different from universities" As noted above, There were more "parts of university" using ((infobox university)) than the nominated template, even before its nomination. Infobox university already serves the function of showing data for universities and parts of universities. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:40, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This template is distinctly needed, a merge would suffice although there could then be problems with Good Faith Editors filling all fields for new institutions/universities and making a mess of existing/new articles, the converse could also occur but it just seems to make more sense to me to keep them separate to avoid confusion. Chris ☮^(Talk) 23:19, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, unnecessarily duplicative and as noted above, does not do anything that ((Infobox university)) doesn't already do. -- Visviva (talk) 01:51, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose University pages almost all contain this infobox. This page should have an infobox because that is Wikipedia's format. Furthermore, I do not see any gain in removing this box - it would just make the page look less like it was for a university. Please provide examples of reputable universities with no info boxes to support your argument to remove the box. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.16.56.99 (talk) 09:49, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You misunderstand the proposal, which is to merge two similar infoboxes. no article would lose it infobox as a result Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:59, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose. University is an institution with which "divisions" are affiliated, not the other way around (for example, Harvard School of Engineering and Applied Sciences is operated by the Harvard Faculty of Arts and Sciences at Harvard University). Try not to engage in busy work. Poeticbent talk 17:11, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I don't know what this deletion request is about, but I don't think it's a good idea for "this template is being considered for deletion" at the top of infoboxes which would lead to casual readers thinking there was an error on the website. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:04, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ritchie333: That's a common aspect of all TfDs, not just this one. Please raise the matter at Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:11, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ban enforcement request[edit]

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 all as not useful as navigational aid Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:01, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Brazil Squad 1992 FIFA Futsal World Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Brazil Squad 1996 FIFA Futsal World Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Italy Squad 2003 UEFA Futsal Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Russia Squad 1999 UEFA Futsal Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per WP:NENAN - fewer than five blue links excluding the parent article . Not a useful aid to navigation at the moment. Fenix down (talk) 11:33, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• weak keep, these are championship-winning squads. Frietjes (talk) 17:46, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - since these are mostly empty, probably a list on an article would be better. -- Beland (talk) 22:31, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - a list on an article would suffice.--saeedparva 17:18, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, mostly red-links. Agree with User:saeedparva. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 17:27, 5 January 2015 (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) 05:17, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Iran Squad 1996 FIFA Futsal World Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per WP:NENAN - fewer than five blue links excluding the parent article . Not a useful aid to navigation at the moment. Fenix down (talk) 11:22, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, didn't win the championship. Frietjes (talk) 14:44, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• keep, have five blue links excluding the parent article--saeedparva 18:44, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - a list on an article would suffice. -- Beland (talk) 22:32, 17 December 2014 (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) 00:05, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Milwaukie neighborhoods (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navbox listing neighborhoods of a small city with no hope of being notable enough for articles. The one neighborhood with any chance of notability, Lewelling, Milwaukie, Oregon was deleted via PROD today. I've rescued dozens of articles about small towns and neighborhoods, so am not a deltionist on these topics, but I have no hope for expansion of these. All can be written about in the primary topic, Milwaukie, Oregon, therefore no navbox is needed. Valfontis (talk) 00:50, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, the neighborhoods of this small suburban city are highly unlikely to be notable enough for any such articles to exist, at least for the next few decades. Even if something dramatic were to happen (like a shooting rampage massacre), the other neighborhoods would not become notable. —EncMstr (talk) 04:50, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per EncMstr. SJ Morg (talk) 16:25, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. I was hesitant to vote this way, since National Register of Historic Places historic districts often embrace neighborhoods (they're always notable, since the National Register requires much more documentation than is required by WP:N), but National Register of Historic Places listings in Clackamas County, Oregon doesn't show any historic districts in Milwaukie. Nyttend (talk) 02:49, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• delete Frietjes (talk) 15:30, 12 December 2014 (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.