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) 21:38, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:William Evans aircraft (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Fails WP:NENAN with just two relevant links to air planes for a non-notable company (= company without own article) The Banner talk 23:36, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, only connects two articles, which is not enough in my opinion. Frietjes (talk) 14:39, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Notification of the existence of this TfD has been made at WikiProject Aviation and WikiProject Aircraft, within whose scope this template falls. - Ahunt (talk) 18:03, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: WP:NENAN is just an essay, not a policy. The template is useful to readers and helps organize the subject. The use of navigation templates like this to organize manufacturer's aircraft types is a consensus standard across many thousands of WikiProject Aircraft articles. A discussion to gain a new consensus on this has been started at WikiProject Aircraft. Rather than dealing with the piecemeal nomination of thousands of aircraft nav boxes please participate there to reach a consensus as to the best course of action. - Ahunt (talk) 18:03, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consensus has to be reached here, not among WikiProject Aircraft. And you are talking about 735 navigation templates in the Category:Manufacturer-based aircraft navigational boxes. I assume most of them should reach the threshold of five relevant links. (Or at least, I hope so.) The Banner talk 20:44, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is a standard and accepted navigational format for these articles. The claimed reason for deletion is a minor essay created by an editor who has a very controversial deletion-inclusion viewpoint and is not generally accepted by the community. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:40, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless at least title redlinks are filled —PC-XT+ 04:43, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There is an ongoing discussion and this nomination is an open attempt at blackmail by one of the disputants, see this diff. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:01, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep These navboxes perform a useful function: the rationale that this is 'tidying up Wikipedia' is feeble in the extreme: no explanation of how deleting these navboxes will actually benefit Wikipedia has been advanced. Essentially, this is just a one-editor jihad based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT and an essay, not a policy.TheLongTone (talk) 17:48, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep it helps the user easily navigate related subjects and replaced a more cumbersome use of the see also area, if the nominator doesnt like the red links they are welcome to help create the required article or at least ask for help. MilborneOne (talk) 14:19, 20 July 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 no consensus Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:37, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Worldwide Ultralite aircraft (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Fails WP:NENAN with just three relevant links to air planes for a non-notable company (= company without own article) The Banner talk 23:35, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, only connects three articles, which is not enough in my opinion. Frietjes (talk) 14:40, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Notification of the existence of this TfD has been made at WikiProject Aviation and WikiProject Aircraft, within whose scope this template falls. - Ahunt (talk) 18:03, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: WP:NENAN is just an essay, not a policy. The template is useful to readers and helps organize the subject. The use of navigation templates like this to organize manufacturer's aircraft types is a consensus standard across many thousands of WikiProject Aircraft articles. A discussion to gain a new consensus on this has been started at WikiProject Aircraft. Rather than dealing with the piecemeal nomination of thousands of aircraft nav boxes please participate there to reach a consensus as to the best course of action. - Ahunt (talk) 18:03, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is a standard and accepted navigational format for these articles. The claimed reason for deletion is a minor essay created by an editor who has a very controversial deletion-inclusion viewpoint and is not generally accepted by the community. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:40, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless at least title redlink is filled —PC-XT+ 04:44, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There is an ongoing discussion and this nomination is an open attempt at blackmail by one of the disputants, see this diff. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:01, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep These navboxes perform a useful function: the rationale that this is 'tidying up Wikipedia' is feeble in the extreme: no explanation of how deleting these navboxes will actually benefit Wikipedia has been advanced. Essentially, this is just a one-editor jihad based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT and an essay, not a policy.TheLongTone (talk) 17:48, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep part of a standard navigation feature on aircraft articles that helps the user easily navigate related subjects and replaced a more cumbersome use of the see also area, if the nominator doesnt like the red links they are welcome to help create the required article or at least ask for help. MilborneOne (talk) 14:20, 20 July 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 no consensus Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:36, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:World Aircraft Company aircraft (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Fails WP:NENAN with just three relevant links (- blue links) to air planes The Banner talk 23:35, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, only connects three articles (only two airplane links), which is not enough in my opinion. Frietjes (talk) 14:40, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Notification of the existence of this TfD has been made at WikiProject Aviation and WikiProject Aircraft, within whose scope this template falls. - Ahunt (talk) 18:03, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: WP:NENAN is just an essay, not a policy. The template is useful to readers and helps organize the subject. The use of navigation templates like this to organize manufacturer's aircraft types is a consensus standard across many thousands of WikiProject Aircraft articles. A discussion to gain a new consensus on this has been started at WikiProject Aircraft. Rather than dealing with the piecemeal nomination of thousands of aircraft nav boxes please participate there to reach a consensus as to the best course of action. - Ahunt (talk) 18:03, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is a standard and accepted navigational format for these articles. The claimed reason for deletion is a minor essay created by an editor who has a very controversial deletion-inclusion viewpoint and is not generally accepted by the community. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:40, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep for now as part of a system that may generate articles for the redlinks —PC-XT+ 04:39, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There is an ongoing discussion and this nomination is an open attempt at blackmail by one of the disputants, see this diff. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:01, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep These navboxes perform a useful function: the rationale that this is 'tidying up Wikipedia' is feeble in the extreme: no explanation of how deleting these navboxes will actually benefit Wikipedia has been advanced. Essentially, this is just a one-editor jihad based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT and an essay, not a policy.TheLongTone (talk) 17:48, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep part of a standard navigation feature on aircraft articles that helps the user easily navigate related subjects and replaced a more cumbersome use of the see also area, if the nominator doesnt like the red links they are welcome to help create the required article or at least ask for help. MilborneOne (talk) 14:21, 20 July 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 no consensus Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:32, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wings of Freedom aircraft (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Fails WP:NENAN with just three relevant links to air planes for a non-notable company (= company without own article) The Banner talk 23:34, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, only connects three articles, which is not enough in my opinion. Frietjes (talk) 14:41, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Notification of the existence of this TfD has been made at WikiProject Aviation and WikiProject Aircraft, within whose scope this template falls. - Ahunt (talk) 18:03, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: WP:NENAN is just an essay, not a policy. The template is useful to readers and helps organize the subject. The use of navigation templates like this to organize manufacturer's aircraft types is a consensus standard across many thousands of WikiProject Aircraft articles. A discussion to gain a new consensus on this has been started at WikiProject Aircraft. Rather than dealing with the piecemeal nomination of thousands of aircraft nav boxes please participate there to reach a consensus as to the best course of action. - Ahunt (talk) 18:03, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is a standard and accepted navigational format for these articles. The claimed reason for deletion is a minor essay created by an editor who has a very controversial deletion-inclusion viewpoint and is not generally accepted by the community. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:40, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless the title redlink would be appropriate for an article —PC-XT+ 04:01, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There is an ongoing discussion and this nomination is an open attempt at blackmail by one of the disputants, see this diff. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:01, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep These navboxes perform a useful function: the rationale that this is 'tidying up Wikipedia' is feeble in the extreme: no explanation of how deleting these navboxes will actually benefit Wikipedia has been advanced. Essentially, this is just a one-editor jihad based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT and an essay, not a policy.TheLongTone (talk) 17:48, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I think the navboxes are useful to go quickly from one aircraft to the other of that manufacturer without loosing time for research. Doesn’t matter the number of the aircraft linked. Chesipiero (talk) 15:13, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep part of a standard navigation feature on aircraft articles that helps the user easily navigate related subjects and replaced a more cumbersome use of the see also area, if the nominator doesnt like the red links they are welcome to help create the required article or at least ask for help. MilborneOne (talk) 14:21, 20 July 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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:31, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Windward Performance aircraft (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Fails WP:NENAN with just three relevant links to air planes The Banner talk 23:34, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• keep, connects four articles, which is enough in my opinion. Frietjes (talk) 14:42, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Notification of the existence of this TfD has been made at WikiProject Aviation and WikiProject Aircraft, within whose scope this template falls. - Ahunt (talk) 18:03, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: WP:NENAN is just an essay, not a policy. The template is useful to readers and helps organize the subject. The use of navigation templates like this to organize manufacturer's aircraft types is a consensus standard across many thousands of WikiProject Aircraft articles. A discussion to gain a new consensus on this has been started at WikiProject Aircraft. Rather than dealing with the piecemeal nomination of thousands of aircraft nav boxes please participate there to reach a consensus as to the best course of action. - Ahunt (talk) 18:03, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is a standard and accepted navigational format for these articles. The claimed reason for deletion is a minor essay created by an editor who has a very controversial deletion-inclusion viewpoint and is not generally accepted by the community. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:40, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above keeps —PC-XT+ 04:21, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There is an ongoing discussion and this nomination is an open attempt at blackmail by one of the disputants, see this diff. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:01, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep These navboxes perform a useful function: the rationale that this is 'tidying up Wikipedia' is feeble in the extreme: no explanation of how deleting these navboxes will actually benefit Wikipedia has been advanced. Essentially, this is just a one-editor jihad based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT and an essay, not a policy.TheLongTone (talk) 17:48, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep part of a standard navigation feature on aircraft articles that helps the user easily navigate related subjects and replaced a more cumbersome use of the see also area, if the nominator doesnt like the red links they are welcome to help create the required article or at least ask for help. MilborneOne (talk) 14:21, 20 July 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 relisted on 2014 July 27 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:39, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Navbar (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) 21:29, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:XtremeAir aircraft (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Fails WP:NENAN with just four relevant links to air planes for a non-notable company (= company without own article) The Banner talk 11:52, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: No need to delete this template, four relevant links makes it useful to readers for navigation. That an article on the company hasn't been written yet in no way means it isn't notable, just that the article hasn't been written yet. - Ahunt (talk) 15:13, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Notification of the existence of this TfD has been made at WikiProject Aviation and WikiProject Aircraft, within whose scope this template falls. - Ahunt (talk) 15:13, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, only connects two articles, which is not enough in my opinion. Frietjes (talk) 18:07, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aha, I had only counted the links, I did not check them. But indeed, two articles can be linked with normal wikilinking. The Banner talk 21:45, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete due to the main red link and incredibly small number of articles linked —PC-XT+ 00:27, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is a standard and accepted navigational format for these articles. The claimed reason for deletion is a minor essay created by an editor who has a very controversial deletion-inclusion viewpoint and is not generally accepted by the community. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:40, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There is an ongoing discussion and this nomination is an open attempt at blackmail by one of the disputants, see this diff. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:01, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep part of a standard navigation feature on aircraft articles that helps the user easily navigate related subjects and replaced a more cumbersome use of the see also area, if the nominator doesnt like the red links they are welcome to help create the required article or at least ask for help. MilborneOne (talk) 14:22, 20 July 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; deleted as G2 by RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 20:14, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Πληροφορίες λογισμικού (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Inappropriate template for English wikipedia, possibly intended for a different language version of the encyclopaedia? CaptRik (talk) 08:43, 14 July 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; deleted as G2 by RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 20:14, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Πλαίσιο πληροφοριών (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Inappropriate template for English Wikipedia. Possibly intended for another language version of the encyclopaedia? CaptRik (talk) 08:40, 14 July 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 no consensus Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:27, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:No Orchids for Miss Blandish (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Seems like an unnecessary template. The information is already mostly presented in the body of the individual articles. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:55, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Since this is a navbox, the links will likely be mentioned in the related articles, but that does not necessarily make them easy to find or convenient for the reader. Navboxes serve that purpose.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:05, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I don't see any policy-based reason for deletion and it does provide convenience of navigation within these articles.--I am One of Many (talk) 05:55, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:NENAN and unlikely this will be expanded beyond the current links. Would also endorse merge with ((James Hadley Chase)). --Netoholic @ 18:46, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Since the items relate to each other they should already have been linked in the text of the articles to explain that relationship. That should be done. Lastcent (talk) 18:47, 3 July 2014 (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) 03:25, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• keep per WP:NENAN or merge with ((James Hadley Chase)) if feasible. Frietjes (talk) 18:11, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep to possibly merge with ((James Hadley Chase)) —PC-XT+ 04:10, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per TonyTheTiger, but merging with James Hadley Chase seems a reasonable option after the TfD. Mackensen (talk) 21:29, 19 July 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 relisted on 2014 July 27 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:26, 27 July 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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:24, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:ZALA aircraft (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

fails WP:NENAN with just three relevant links. That can be solved with normal wikilinking without a navigation template. The Banner talk 01:36, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: WP:NENAN is just an essay, not a policy. There are four relevant links in this template, not three, as the company has an article as well. The template is useful to readers and helps organize the subject. The use of navigation templates like this to organize manufacturer's aircraft types is a consensus standard across many thousands of WikiProject Aircraft articles. You would be better off gaining a new consensus on this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft than piecemeal attempting to overturn consensus with hundreds of TfDs. If you are going to keep nominating these then please complete the process and notify the relevant projects to avoid stealth deletions. - Ahunt (talk) 15:28, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Notification of the existence of this TfD has been made at WikiProject Aviation and WikiProject Aircraft, within whose scope this template falls. - Ahunt (talk) 15:31, 14 July 2014 (UTC) [reply]

• keep, connects four articles, which is enough in my opinion. Frietjes (talk) 18:03, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep part of a standard navigation scheme for aircraft companies and products per User:Ahunt. MilborneOne (talk) 20:04, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is a standard and accepted navigational format for these articles. The claimed reason for deletion is a minor essay created by an editor who has a very controversial deletion-inclusion viewpoint and is not generally accepted by the community. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:38, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, at least for now. It appears this was decided better than alternatives a few years ago. Further discussion may improve this system, but I agree that deletion is perhaps premature for this navbox. —PC-XT+ 03:10, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There is an ongoing discussion and this nomination is an open attempt at blackmail by one of the disputants, see this diff. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:01, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep These navboxes perform a useful function: the rationale that this is 'tidying up Wikipedia' is feeble in the extreme: no explanation of how deleting these navboxes will actually benefit Wikipedia has been advanced. Essentially, this is just a one-editor jihad based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT and an essay, not a policy.TheLongTone (talk) 17:51, 17 July 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 no consensus Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:21, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Zenoah aircraft engines (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:NENAN. Just two engines from a non-notable company (= there is no article about the company itself). This can be fixed with normal wikilinking without a navigation template. The Banner talk 01:34, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I wouldn't say that Zenoah is a non-notable company, their website states that they are the 'leading manufacturer of outdoor power equipment in Japan' which is entirely possible. Their two-stroke engines for RC use are very popular and used worldwide and they have a range of other products. The company is part of the Husqvarna AB group, Zenoah is one of two remaining redlinks mentioned there. I'm sure there are more aircraft engines, the articles just haven't been written yet. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 09:15, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, you can fix that. But the fact is that the template has just two useful links. For that, you do not need a navigation template. The Banner talk 10:56, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The conclusion that because there is no article on the company that the company is therefore non-notable is spurious. It is one of the world's leading two-stoke engine manufacturers, it is just that no article has yet been written. The company likewise has dozens of engine designs that just need adding to this template. Because a template or article is incomplete and could be expanded is no reason to delete it. - Ahunt (talk) 15:22, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Notification of the existence of this TfD has been made at WikiProject Aviation and WikiProject Aircraft, within whose scope this template falls. - Ahunt (talk) 15:22, 14 July 2014 (UTC) [reply]

• delete, only connects two articles, which is not enough in my opinion. Frietjes (talk) 18:04, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is a standard and accepted navigational format for these articles. The claimed reason for deletion is a minor essay created by an editor who has a very controversial deletion-inclusion viewpoint and is not generally accepted by the community. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:38, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with support for undeletion or recreation if more articles are created. Alternatively, the template could be moved to link the company's engines of different kinds, with arcraft engines as one section. —PC-XT+ 03:19, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There is an ongoing discussion and this nomination is an open attempt at blackmail by one of the disputants, see this diff. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:01, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep These navboxes perform a useful function: the rationale that this is 'tidying up Wikipedia' is feeble in the extreme: no explanation of how deleting these navboxes will actually benefit Wikipedia has been advanced. Essentially, this is just a one-editor jihad based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT and an essay, not a policy.TheLongTone (talk) 17:51, 17 July 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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:20, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

This template seems to be a duplicate of Template:Sockpuppet in that it has the same functionality and use of that template (only the wording slightly differs). Gparyani (talk) 23:05, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment according to the documentation at "Sockpuppetry", it can be used instead of "Sockpuppet" and ((Sockpuppeteer)) as it says it can be used for the puppet and the master. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 23:36, 4 July 2014 (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) 01:23, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• keep for now since it is in use, with well over 300 uses. however, I could see merging it with the other template, or replacing it, but it's not clear if that is feasible. Frietjes (talk) 18:13, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I suggest keeping Template:Sockpuppetry. Its t option for master/puppet could be used instead of the ((Sockpuppet)) & ((Sockpuppeteer)) templates with some tweaks. These could be converted into redirects, just a thought. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:54, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, with some interest in making this into a template to replace the others... —PC-XT+ 00:41, 15 July 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.