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. The template has been renamed, a related template has been deleted, and a parent article has been created since the initial nomination. Hence, since so much has changed since the start of the discussion, I am closing this as no consensus, but please feel free to renominate it for deletion. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:09, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Deaths inspiring Black Lives Matter (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

There is no article on this subject and the navbox links overlap with those in Template:Deaths inspiring Black Lives Matter. This navbox gives undue prominence to the organization, thus violating WP:NPOV. There are also related WP:OR concerns that I have raised at talk:Black Lives Matter#Deaths inspiring the movement. - MrX 20:11, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete per WP:T3. Duplicate template of Template:2010s_controversial_killings_of_African_Americans. Clearly created (by same editor) to evade the possible delete decision in the TfD here: Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_May_3#Template:2010s_controversial_killings_of_African_Americans, who then proceeded to replace the TfD'd Template in every article with the new template. The consensus at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_controversial_killings_of_African_Americans_in_the_2010s is that there are 0 WP:RS connecting the deaths other than the template creator's WP:OR. Creator has also attempted to recruit others to his cause following the AfD, in order to re-add the list with the same problems he was informed of, within Black Lives Matter here: User_talk:Starship.paint#Lives ― Padenton|✉   20:48, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Padenton: WP:T3 does not apply because the template has been renamed. It is a totally new way of categorizing. The new template doesn't even have all the entries of the old template because of the new way of categorizing (Kendrick Johnson). Also, WP:OR does not apply because in Black Lives Matter#Deaths inspiring the movement there is both a primary source from the official Black Lives Matter team and a secondary source citing each case's link to BLM. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 00:44, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a totally new way of categorizing, it is not completely different. You renamed the template and it still has pretty much all of the same content. Do I really need to post a diff of the two? You have not addressed any of the stated problems in the other TfD and you also attempted to recreate the list that was already deleted under a new article name. ― Padenton|✉   17:45, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (or at least heavily reformat). I supported keeping ((2010s controversial killings of African Americans)), and still do, but this one is redundant to that one at best, and more blatantly POV. ('Controversial killings in the 2010s' is fairly neutral, and in theory sourcable and discriminate; 'deaths inspiring Black Lives Matter' is much more of a campaigning phrase, and harder to source reliably.) The only way I think this could be kept is if it was very tightly limited to articles strongly and directly related to Black Lives Matter, and I don't think we have enough of them to justify a navbox. Robofish (talk) 23:28, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Robofish: - I created a list article on the old template, which was deleted. The old template should be deleted as well. Also, have you read Black Lives Matter#Deaths inspiring the movement? I have both a primary source from the official Black Lives Matter team and a secondary source citing each case's link to BLM. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 00:44, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This is just a rehash of the ((2010s controversial killings of African Americans)) template. Libertarian12111971 (talk) 03:53, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• No, it isn't. Each and every one of these deaths have been sourced to be linked with the Black Lives Matter movement. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 07:19, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• If so, then the ((2010s controversial killings of African Americans)) template should've just been renamed, because other than the title, the content is word for word with the other template. Libertarian12111971 (talk) 19:45, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - this template is totally different from ((2010s controversial killings of African Americans)). The 2010s template did not source any connections to Black Lives Matter, they were just "controversial" deaths. In the parent article of this template, however, there are two sources, one primary from the official Black Lives Matter team, and one secondary soure, connecting each death to furthering the Black Lives Matter movement. New definition, different story here. Disclaimer: I created this template. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 13:08, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Essentially for the same reasons we couldn't keep ((2010s controversial killings of African Americans)). I again counsel to attempt to include this material in the Black Lives Matter article in a way other than just sticking a list on the page. PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 20:20, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No clear inclusion criteria. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 06:09, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Now that the template has been renamed to Template:Deaths protested by Black Lives Matter, I think the inclusion criteria would be ... any deaths protested by the Black Lives Matter movement/hashtag. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 13:06, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No parent article, and no specific inclusion criteria. --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:30, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• It's part of the Black Lives Matter article. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 06:48, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: Template has been further reformatted to cover the whole topic of Black Lives Matter, and thus renamed to Template:Black Lives Matter. So, parent article exists. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 01:41, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I created the Black Lives Matter article, and have been somewhat concerned that an agenda, promoting an organised movement with "founders" and "chapters", has been pushed, displacing the documentation of the grass-roots and "emergent behaviour" movement, and the use of the slogan by wider the wider movement, along with "Hands Up, Don't Shoot", "I Can't Breathe", and "No Justice, No Peace". All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 10:53, 2 June 2015 (UTC).
  
• renominate, the majority of the comments above are based on duplication (or lack of duplication) with ((2010s controversial killings of African Americans)). now that that template has been deleted, we should restart the conversation about this template. Frietjes (talk) 13:55, 9 June 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. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:09, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Princeton Tigers men's soccer coach navbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only links to two managers. A holder of this position does not appear to be inherently notable per either WP:NFOOTY or WP:NCOLLATH, so not sure the extent to which this could be expanded. Either way, currently not a useful aid to navigation Fenix down (talk) 14:43, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - indeed, the Princeton Tigers men's soccer team does not seem to be high on the notability rankings. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 13:22, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per applicable precedents regarding coach succession navboxes. This navbox include nine coach links, two of which are blue links to existing content. Seven of nine links, or roughly 78% are red links to non-existent articles. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:21, 28 May 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. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:12, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Country World Weightlifting Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused and redundant to ((Infobox country at games)). Alakzi (talk) 13:59, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:18, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator's rationale. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:23, 28 May 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 merge. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:10, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Country European Athletics Championships (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Infobox Country World Championships in Athletics (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Infobox country at games (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox Country European Athletics Championships with Template:Infobox country at games.
The first two are redundant to the generic ((Infobox country at games)), with the exception of the IAAF code and national federation labels, for which two new parameters could be added. A side-by-side comparison of ((Infobox Country European Athletics Championships)) and ((Infobox country at games)) can be seen here. Alakzi (talk) 13:54, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:17, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as long as the IAAF code and national federation fields are successfully merged into the "Infobox country at games" template. As a result, I also think it's worth considering renaming the games template to something more generic like "Infobox country at sports competition" instead to reflect the broadening of scope. SFB 00:27, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Again I see we are proposing to delete a perfectly good template because a lot of the content is duplicated. I have no allegiance to this template but if it has found an appropriate home, and the merge does require a modification, why is this discussion necessary? We've got better things to do with our time than to try to figure out how to save 1K of data by removing one small template, even if it were an exact duplicate with a different name. Trackinfo (talk) 02:37, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Trackinfo: Participation is optional. This is mostly a formality, so that the merge won't be arbitrarily reverted at some point in the future with the excuse that no consensus had been previously established. The time you've wasted you have done so willingly; you're not required to partake in any part of the merge process. I hope this answers your question. Alakzi (talk) 02:46, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Trackinfo: We need to remove redundant infoboxes for the reasons explained in Wikipedia:Infobox consolidation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 07:29, 27 May 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) 05:01, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:New Line (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is used solely in New Line Cinema and Time Warner, but only tells us what is already presented in the New Line article. It is a very notable subsidiary of Time Warner, but we do not have templates for every subsidiary of the company. The New Line Cinema infobox does a good enough job of presenting the information shown in this template, as is much more beneficial to the reader being at the top of the article rather than the bottom. Cloudbound (talk) 12:37, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per the nom. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 13:18, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment if this is kept, it should be renamed to ((New Line Cinema)) to match the article name, since it isn't for creating newlines ( <br> ) -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:38, 29 May 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.