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) 08:50, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Africa countries imagemap (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This imagemap is misaligned, resulting in the wrong country names being shown. It has apparently been this way for years, and no one has bothered to fix it. See Template talk:Africa countries imagemap for additional context. I posted about it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Maps#Africa imagemap a week ago, and the sole reply that generated (on the template's talk page) was a suggestion that it be deleted. I agree. I have removed the template from the 2 articles it was being used on. - dcljr (talk) 22:28, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• delete Frietjes (talk) 17:03, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Frietjes--DThomsen8 (talk) 19:32, 4 April 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 Speedy deleted per user request. Sam Walton (talk) 09:58, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Day Countdown (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is an unused recreation of a speedily deleted template. (It is a hardcoded instance of another template.) —PC-XT+ 22:05, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The author has requested speedy deletion under WP:CSD#G7 (db-author) —PC-XT+ 08:53, 30 March 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 no consensus. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 09:16, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template effectively tries to navigate between one item. That is not where templates are for as they should help with navigating between several items. No parent article. The Banner talk 21:24, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment the "main article" is also non-existent ( Georges Briffaud ) -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 05:24, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Notification of the existence of this TfD has been made at WikiProject Aviation and WikiProject Aircraft, within whose scope this article falls. - Ahunt (talk) 11:42, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. These manufacture navboxes are an established and useful part of aircraft articles. That the links are red is an irrelevance: the articles will very possibly be created. This business was the subject of a lengthy discussion, and I think that The Banner is bein pointy in making these nominations.TheLongTone (talk) 14:21, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, when you do not have valid arguments, you can still attack the nominator. Okay, that makes things clear. But about being pointy: read through the older pages and you can see a few nominations where the template was removed due to lack of links. The Banner talk 18:45, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator's rationale. Navboxes require existing content to justify their existence; their purpose is to facilitate reader navigation among existing Wikipedia articles. In this case, four out of five links are red links to nowhere, and the parent article George Briffaud is non-existent, thus failing one of the key criteria of WP:NAVBOX. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:59, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy until the articles are created —PC-XT+ 05:27, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• delete or userfy Frietjes (talk) 17:04, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Build the wiki folks. There are five potential articles to be created from this template (are we certain there are not more?). The template creator is methodical and will most likely fill all the redlinks given time. The reasons for the creation of these templates has been explained ad nauseum for the nominator in multiple previous TfD attempts but for those not familiar I will try to explain clearly in a nutshell the history. Template:Aircontent previously had a 'sequence' parameter which listed other articles from the same manufacturer or series, it was an untidy way to do it and there was pressure to move to a navbox format. This works well. No Wikipedia policy or guideline 'busting' has been cited in the nomination. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:58, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – fr:Briffaud GB-80 exists and [1] has more potential to create the missing articles. Mojoworker (talk) 03:48, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - As has been noted before, these aircraft nav boxes are part of WikiProject Aircraft and we have a solid consensus to create them so as to provide a uniform experience for readers across all aircraft type articles. The key objection here seems to be that the box contains redlinks. As noted, the members of WikiProject Aircraft are in the process of a multi-year project to complete articles on all aircraft types and manufacturers, so these will get completed in the future. See WP:NODEADLINE. If this box is deleted then it will just have to be recreated as more refs are found and the missing articles are written. In the meantime it clearly spells out to readers what other aircraft the manufacturer also made and which articles are not yet written, see WP:REDLINK. The time spent by editors constantly nominating aircraft project nav boxes for deletion and the time needed to constantly debate over their usefulness would be better spent writing the missing articles. That way the encyclopedia would be constantly improved day-by-day instead of constantly degraded by deleting nav boxes. - Ahunt (talk) 11:49, 2 April 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) 08:52, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:England 2014 Four Nations Squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template only used once (at Josh Hodgson) and without parent articles. The Banner talk 21:22, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, duplicates 2014_Rugby_League_Four_Nations#England. Frietjes (talk) 17:04, 31 March 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 no consensus for ((Texas sports)), but delete the rest. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 09:19, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Central Texas Sports (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:South Texas Sports (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:West Texas Sports (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:North Texas sports (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Houston Sports (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Dallas-Fort Worth Sports (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Texas sports (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I'm nominating the "sports by region" navboxes in Texas due to the result of Template:MiddleTennesseeSports. It has been determined that the "regional" navboxes are redundant to ((Texas sports)) because they accomplish the same task: listing other sports teams in the area. Having one statewide template instead of several regional templates is also more useful for navigation, provides for easier maintenance, and helps prevent having too many navboxes at the bottom of articles (especially for teams in the Big Four leagues). Tavix |  Talk  07:29, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note:The creator of these navboxes have been notified. Tavix |  Talk  07:29, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. If New York City, Los Angeles, and Chicago can get their own separate userboxes, why not Houston and DFW and maybe South Texas? I'm just saying that Texas is bigger than most other states and the userbox would get MASSIVE if we only used that (which is why California doesn't have a userbox for just the whole state). Tom Danson (talk) 12:07, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - There is a whole category of sports by city, Category:United States sports navigational boxes by city, and I am aware of other navboxes that group sports teams, stadiums, etc., by state and region which are not included in the example category. I am extremely skeptical whether such navboxes are of any real use to our readers, and I think it may be time to have a more generalized discussion whether such multi-sport navboxes have value or whether they simply contribute to the ever-growing bottom-of-the-page cruft associated with many of our sports articles. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:31, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• See also Category:United States sports navigational boxes by state. There seems to be a recent proliferation of these multi-sport navboxes by state, being created by the same small handful of editors. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:40, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Either way we look at it, either the state template is redundant or the region templates are redundant. There's no need to have 2-3 different sets that accomplish the same thing. It just adds to the maintenance when teams start up or go defunct and the statewide template isn't that much bigger. The most extreme example ((Dallas-Fort Worth Sports)) looks like it is almost the same length as ((Texas sports)) (and really, it's close: 4.4kb vs. 5.7kb). In some examples, there are teams that are on three navboxes. Any teams located in DFW would be in ((Dallas-Fort Worth Sports)), ((North Texas sports)), and ((Texas sports)). That's a problem. I didn't want to dive off the deep end and nominate the entire category en masse. I feel like it's better to look at them in chunks that people can actually sort through easily. Tavix |  Talk  16:38, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Tavix: Oh, the nominated navboxes are clearly redundant. My larger point is whether any of these navboxes serve a valid navigation purpose, or whether they are simply more navbox cruft. Does anyone navigate from an article about a minor league soccer team located in Texas to an article about a semi-pro rugby team located in Texas to an article about the Houston NBA team? While these linked articles are all "sports" in Texas, I think they are about as unrelated as they can get under that umbrella. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:52, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah, I see what you're saying. I honestly haven't even thought about that. I simply wanted to clear out the redundancies that already exist. I do think "single sport in State X" is a valid navbox (such as ((Texas soccer))). There is a problem that occurs when you get to sparsely populated states, and there are only like five non-collegiate teams in that entire state. ((Vermont Sports)) is probably the most extreme example there. In that case, "single sport in Vermont" would not be useful, while "Vermont Sports" is. Where would you draw the line though? Even bigger states like ((Missouri Sports)) (home of two top fifty metro areas) would have that problem (ie: only one basketball team in the entire state). Scaling that up, it almost seems like an all-or-nothing proposition. (sorry if that doesn't make sense.)Tavix |  Talk  17:20, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I've had my eye on this family of navboxes for the last year or so, and now that several editors appear to be churning them out in a hurry, it's probably time to address the larger issue in another TfD. I'm not going to hijack your TfD discussion here, but I think all of these multi-sport navboxes need to be deleted -- they serve no useful navigation purpose because the linked topics are only loosely related by geography under the umbrella of "sports." As a basic test, no one would ever include a "see also" link for the Houston Rockets in the article for a minor league baseball team based in Amarillo. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:29, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• It seems that deletionists are swarming this post. I mean, you've started a slippery slope; if we delete the sports navboxes, why not delete the radio and TV navboxes as well? Tom Danson (talk) 14:13, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tom, I am no "deletionist." I am a frequent editor of sports articles who actually understands the criteria of the WP:NAVBOX guidelines, and also recognizes that many of our sports articles are burdened with massive amounts of bottom-of-the-page cruft that is of minimal use to our readers. Specifically, WP:NAVBOX states that navboxes should satisfy the following criteria:

"1. All articles within a template relate to a single, coherent subject.

"2. The subject of the template should be mentioned in every article.

"3. The articles should refer to each other, to a reasonable extent.

"4. There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template.

"5. You would want to list many of these articles in the See also sections of the articles."

These navboxes fail criteria 2, 3, 4 and 5, and even criterion 1 is arguable. Most tellingly, there is no stand-alone article on the specific topic of the navbox per no. 4. Please review the criteria and understand their application to the particulars of these templates before commenting further. Finally, from an organizational standpoint, these regional navboxes divide the content along arbitrary regional lines. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:39, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all per the nominator's rationale, while reserving the right to !vote to delete the "parent" navbox, too, for the reasons discussed above. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:52, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I think these are all cruft, but if I had to choose one or the other, I would delete ((Texas sports)) (or at the very least, dump the obnoxious images) and retain the regional boxes. And if retained, mass cleanup is required as people need to remember that the purpose of these templates are to aid navigation. They are not meant to be full-scale lists. As such, the non-notable soccer and basketball teams in the DFW template, for instance, need to go if the template is kept. Resolute 15:40, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• So, I'm going to try a test article here at San Antonio Scorpions. First off, I removed ((USSoccer)) because it did not have a WP:BIDIRECTIONAL link. That leaves the following:
  1. ((South Texas Sports)): To evaluate using the enumerated checks Dirtlawyer1 posted: Fails #1 (not coherent), fails #2 (articles don't mention "South Texas" as a particular point), fails #3 (they don't and probably wouldn't if we were to have See Also links or even in-text links), fails #4 (no Wikipedia article on subject, though this one is usually bent to some degree), and certainly fails #5.
  2. ((Texas sports)): Same result here as for the regional template.

  So, my !vote is to delete all. Content related to particular regions should be associated with those regions' articles, for example at San Antonio#Sports. --Izno (talk) 18:43, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  I'll toss in a delete for ((Texas sports)) as well given the presence of Sports in Texas, given that the "parent" navbox fails WP:NAVBOX for the same reason as the children. I've boldly added it to this discussion also. --Izno (talk) 19:21, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all Delete the regional navboxes per WP:NAVBOX No. 4: "There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template." I'm wary of WP:OR used to create the concept of these groupings, especially when an article on the subject does not exist. Delete the Texas state specific template per WP:NAVBOX No. 5: "You would want to list many of these articles in the See also sections of the articles." I'm a pretty big sports fan, and I don't think most American readers would want to jump from one sport to another different sport, merely on the basis of the teams being geographically located in the same state.—Bagumba (talk) 22:38, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Now that ((Texas sports)) has been nominated, let me give my opinion on it. I think it should be split into each of the sports that has a decent amount of teams associated with it. See ((Texas soccer)) for an example of what I mean. This would create ((Texas baseball)) ((Texas baskeball)) ((Texas football)) ((Texas hockey)), etc. (and if there are only a couple teams, it may be useful to include defunct teams as a separate group?) Tavix |  Talk  22:44, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  I think that might be a suitable solution, though I'm not sure I favor it over simple deletion of T:Texas sports. --Izno (talk) 23:04, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep ((Texas sports)), at least for now (but, I agree, remove the images from it). As for the others, I really have no opinion, one way or the other on them, but ((Texas sports)) is part of a wider class of navboxes (see Category:United States sports navigational boxes by state) which really deserves a much broader discussion then it will be able to get here, hidden in among all of the other sub-state boxes here. Ejgreen77 (talk) 17:09, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Tom Danson. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (banter) @ 20:32, 29 March 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 no consensus. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 09:06, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox London Tramlink route (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Commenters in the previous TfD asked for this to be made a wrapper. I have now done that, and Subst: each of the only five transclusions, with no loss of content. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:29, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, obviously redundant to ((Infobox tram line)). Alakzi (talk) 23:45, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Who are the people in the previous TfD that asked for this to be made a wrapper? I see only one: PC-XT (talk · contribs) said "Keep in case someone wants to wrap it". Where was it suggested that replacing it with ((infobox bus line)) was a desirable action? Trams are not buses. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:54, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The use of ((Infobox tram line)) was suggested by Secondarywaltz. That template redirects to ((Infobox bus line)) (for the obvious reason that the parameters for both are the same. You have also missed another commenter, Fritjes, who wrote "I could see rewriting it as a frontend for something then reconsidering". In what way do you think keeping this unused, unnecessary and redundant template benefits the project? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:18, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Secondarywaltz did mention ((Infobox tram line)) but it is not at all clear whether they intended that it be merged/replaced/wrapped to that or not. Frietjes suggested a rewrite "as a frontend for something", but did not say that this template should become a wrapper for ((Infobox tram line)) - or any other specific template.
      I'd also like to bring up a point of order: you claim "unused", but it's only unused because you pre-empted the outcome of the TfD by substing every use before filing the TfD. This is an abuse of process. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:38, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Poppycock. But if you believe otherwise, WP:ANI is available. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:45, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I note that Redrose64 makes no argument whatsoever as to why this redundant template is needed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:43, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• keep and revert the premature orphaning. Frietjes (talk) 16:53, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • What "premature orphaning"? It's perfectly within Wikipedia policy to make such edits. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:30, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which policy would that be? --Redrose64 (talk) 23:38, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:EP. Please familiarise yourself with it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:02, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Which bit specifically? The bit that advocates caution before making major changes? --Redrose64 (talk) 09:47, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • Please compare the before & after versions of the article for this edit, and explain what "major changes" you see. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:40, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • Well, I consider these edits to be major changes. I see no evidence that you had tested your changes (and one of those edits was a revert) in the template's sandbox first. Where were these changes discussed? At Template talk:Infobox London Tramlink route - no; how about Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London - no; or perhaps Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains - again, no. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:59, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
              • Those are not the edits described as "premature"; please don't try to change the subject. And there is no requiremnt to discus such (or any) edits before they are made; this is also policy. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:07, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
                • Pardon my ignorance, but what does this back-and-forth have to do with whether the template should be deleted? Templates are kept for being useful; not because they might've been prematurely orphaned. I'll revert all the subst:s if it means we can get on with discussing the template. Alakzi (talk) 16:20, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I note that Frietjes makes no argument whatsoever as to why this redundant template is needed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:43, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • wrappers are useful, and trams aren't buses. Frietjes (talk) 22:01, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • In what ways was this wrapper useful? The parameters mapped one-to-one. The template could be renamed to "Infobox bus or tram line" or "Infobox public transit line"—or similar. Alakzi (talk) 22:04, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Silly and redundant in the first place, did anyone here actually care about this template or use it prior to this TfD? Let's not be pointy. Montanabw^(talk) 20:21, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It shouldn't matter whether people here used it. The fact is that it was used - until four minutes before this TfD was filed. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:22, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I went looking for a policy which actually says "don't change the status quo while a discussion in a deletion forum is underway" (which I've noted is simply good policy). I did find a handful related to article talk pages and sometimes content on an article, but nothing of the sort which you're trying to claim exists. --Izno (talk) 23:02, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • While you're correct that that doesn't exist, what he's trying to claim is "don't change the status quo before a discussion in a deletion forum is underway" . Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:10, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • I like to have diffs showing replacement edits during or leading up to the nomination, but only because it is valuable information, not because I think it is specifically required. It's just harder to find the replacements after WhatLinksHere is empty, and I like to have some idea of previous usage and redundancy before !voting delete. Replacement diffs are excellent demonstration of these things. —PC-XT+ 02:18, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • See Redrose64's comment dated 00:38, 22 March 2015 (UTC). Alakzi (talk) 02:21, 29 March 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) 08:54, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

redundant to standard image/file syntax or module:InfoboxImage, and frequently used improperly. Frietjes (talk) 18:21, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete agree with nom, new users get it confused and template editors can figure it out without needing its own template. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 03:20, 7 April 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) 09:03, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Lists by country (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template does not connect any particular topic - a sample of the pages linked from this template: ISO 3166-1, Ship prefix, Gallery of sovereign-state flags, List of First Spouses, Divorce demography, List of schools by country, World Heritage Site, Outline of cuisines, List of living cardinals, Emergency contraceptive availability by country. Note: Another editor asked about the purpose of the category 5 years ago and there has been no reply. DexDor ^(talk) 17:56, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not a coherent topic for a WP:NAVBOX. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:53, 30 March 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) 09:01, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Big Machine Records (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The template had the label's roster in it, which is not allowed per precedent. Barring that, this is a WP:NENAN without enough stuff to interlink. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:08, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. See also Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 March 25#Template:DFTBA Records. --Rob Sinden (talk) 07:51, 30 March 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.