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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:41, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:US Youth Soccer State Associations (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Youth soccer is not notable, so this template is not required JMHamo (talk) 19:24, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 19:28, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Correction: Youth soccer, as an activity, is clearly notable per WP:GNG, but the overwhelming majority of youth soccer associations, and virtually all youth soccer teams are not notable per WP:ORG and WP:GNG. Therefore this mostly red link template of youth soccer associations should still be deleted. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:42, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Vast majority of subjects linked by this template are not notable. --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 21:57, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• delete, and connect articles by simple see-also links. Frietjes (talk) 14:16, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per Dirtlawyer1; not enough notable bluelinks to justify having a navigation template. GiantSnowman 15:52, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not currently a useful aid to navigation. No problems recreating if sufficient bluelinks are made. Fenix down (talk) 14:06, 22 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 keep. Overall consensus is for the template to be retained. Discussion regarding a potential renaming can continue on the template's talk page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:19, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox YouTube personality (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

An infobox for people on the YouTube service, with too much emphasis on ever-changing numbers. Template:Infobox comedian and Template:Infobox person already accomodate this, and in a better way. Infoboxes are by occupation or type, not commercial service. JacktheHarry (talk) 17:51, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Seriously? How many truly notable "Youtube personalties" satisfy the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG? In the absence of the documented existence of a substantial number of notable "Youtube personalties", I agree with the nominator's rationale that these few cases may be better handled by Infobox person or one of the infobox templates suggested by the nominator. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:46, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This many? PC78 (talk) 21:18, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are currently hundreds of pages on YouTube personalities, this is a widely used infobox. ☞ Rim ^{< Talk | Edits >} 19:39, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not a "widely used infobox", it was only created less than 48 hours ago about a month ago and is currently used in 14 main space articles. PC78 (talk) 20:16, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • It was created April the 3rd, i don't think that's 48 hours. GuzzyG (talk) 05:57, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • My bad, obviously I misread the dates. Still not "widely used" as claimed though, which was really the crux of my point. PC78 (talk) 20:10, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as redundant. The mere 26 transclusions can be replaced with ((Infobox person)). 23:22, 3 May 2015 (UTC)Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits
  • There's over 200 people in category:Youtube Personalities this could be used on, i don't know if that is redundant.
• merge rewrite to match ((infobox person/Internet info)) (i.e., make it a module). Frietjes (talk) 14:13, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Frietjes. Seems like a sensible proposal. PC78 (talk) 17:27, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not redundant to any other template as far as I know. We have many articles of notable YouTubers where this may be of use, perhaps moreso as a module of ((Infobox person)) than by itself, but that capability is already present. PC78 (talk) 20:10, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The template provides info regular userboxes do not. Being a well-known YouTube personality is an occupation, not a hobby or side-gig. If you're going to go by the logic that the "ever changing numbers" is too much of a hassle you're incorrect. The List of wikis page always needs to have its article count updated, subscriber/view count should be no different. ☞ Rim ^{< Talk | Edits >} 19:39, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • A person who produces video to upload to a website, either privately, or as part of a company will already fall into an occupation. Distributing it on YouTube doesn't make their occupation inherently different. This infobox is as silly as having ((Infobox iTunes artist)), ((Infobox Fox News journalist)) ((Infobox BBC journalist)), ((Infobox Microsoft employee)), ((Infobox Twitter celebrity)), etc. ((Refimprove)) has been stuck on List of wikis for over 4 years for a reason. A number of pages on a wiki isn't comparible to hits \ subscribers of a page \ person.--JacktheHarry (talk) 12:37, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep First of all, just to point out, the template's been around for a month, not 48 hours. Moving on, the fact that the template is only used on 14 mainspace articles doesn't make it a redundant template; it could be used on the hundreds of other pages on YouTube personalities. The "ever-changing numbers" don't need to be ever-changing anyway; the counts on the pages in which the templates are being used have been updated monthly. The associated acts section is also useful for notable YouTubers regularly collaborating with each other as well as other notable entertainers, and can be likened to the same section on ((Infobox musical artist)). Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego 18:07, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • ((Infobox musical artist)) has no field for records sold for the same reason this infobox shouldn't have hits or subscribers. Are you going to manually update them all every month then? If you are forever changing numbers every month using a primary source, then this constitutes a WP:NOTNEWS piece of info.--JacktheHarry (talk) 12:37, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I agree with Davykamanzi's reasoning. Aria1561 (talk) 23:15, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Useful template for an increasingly growing occupation, provides our readers with information unique to their occupation, another infobox does not have the right parameters for youtubers. The views and subscribers provide encyclopaedic information as a crucial part to an occupation for our readers. GuzzyG (talk) 05:57, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Deleting this template will just inconvenience Wikipedia editors and viewers. As stated above, it is useful for a growing occupation. If it isn't being used as much as it should, use it more. I'd like it to stay.--Jacob Hellflames (talk) 14:13, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is indeed, perhaps counter-intuitively, a valid and notable occupation. And it has parameters that are useful and hard to otherwise customize for such notable individuals of this occupation. Mamyles (talk) 21:40, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. People should not have a different infobox just because of which website they upload content to. YouTube is not an occupation; people upload videos to it because it's the dominant video-sharing site, not because of what they want to upload. Replace with ((Infobox comedian)), ((Infobox musical artist)) or ((Infobox person)). Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use ((re|Jc86035)) to reply to me 13:58, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to something like ((Infobox online content creator)), change the background colour to the default grey, add an "online service" parameter for specifying the website the person uses, change all transclusions to a child infobox to be used inside ((Infobox person)), ((Infobox comedian)), etc. (since this template lacks a large number of parameters that other biography infoboxes have) and remove the capability to use this as a standalone infobox, per Soulbust. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use ((re|Jc86035)) to reply to me 11:01, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep/Rename Noticing how mostly everybody who wants to delete this template states that it should be deleted for the reason that the infobox is called "YouTube personality", perhaps a compromise can be reached by renaming it "Online content creator" and adding a parameter which an editor can list the websites which an online personality posts their created content. Soulbust (talk) 03:13, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and perhaps Rename to "YouTube channel" - I tend to fall on the side of thinking fewer YouTubers are notable than have articles or are mentioned on Wikipedia, but I don't see why this should be deleted. Even if it wasn't created 48 hours ago, it was created last month. With such things it seems like if the person who creates the infobox doesn't him/herself implement it or enlist a WikiProject or bot to do so, it's going to take time to be noticed. I think it makes sense to consider the number of pages it applies to, which is far greater than the number where it's been added already (and is only going to grow). Changing it to "YouTube channel" switches it from an occupation to a form of content. Yes, that may mean that someone who is notable for YouTube and something else may have a YouTube channel infobox and a person infobox, but most of the time it's the channel that's most notable. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:34, 20 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, better to navigate by a category. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:44, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2010s controversial killings of African Americans (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This navbox does not include a parent article. How are these subjects connected and what is the defined scope? There should be an article that ties these individuals together. Otherwise, this is cherry picking. --Another Believer _(Talk) 17:25, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator's rationale. This will be a controversy magnet, with no stand-alone article per WP:NAVBOX, and no well-defined criteria for inclusion within the navbox. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:48, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• delete, no parent article. Frietjes (talk) 14:16, 4 May 2015 (UTC) delete, better covered by the list article and/or a category. Frietjes (talk) 13:33, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: As a relatively newbie editor, I was unfamiliar with the requirement for a parent article. If this template is deleted, could the contents be converted to a category or a list? Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 10:22, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Grand'mere Eugene: You may request that the closing administrator "userfy" the list for potential conversion to an article or list. Please take note of the issues regarding criteria for inclusion mentioned in this TfD, and those of Nokkenbuer below. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:21, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. A parent article can easily be made. Epic Genius (talk) 13:29, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Too controversial without a parent article. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 17:25, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete This template is created to drag wikipedia directly into an individuals political ambitions. This is not the purpose of an encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.57.23.82 (talk) 07:05, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – I'm rather ambivalent about this whole situation, but modifying my !vote with "weak" or something of the sort doesn't really help. I basically agree with the other users above. When I noticed this template, it concerned me because I felt it was a bit POV and drew unnecessary attention to an arbitrarily defined set of shootings. The only binding common characteristics among all these shootings are that the victims are either black or African-American, and that it occurred within the 2010–2019 decade. Some of them potentially had racial motivations, whereas most did not. This template may inadvertently lead readers to false conclusions and cause controversy which is otherwise unnecessary. I appreciate the attempt, but I see no valid rationale for keeping this template at this time. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 21:09, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The navbox is not here to imply that any of these events had racial motivations; only that there has been widespread question raised as to such, resulting in controversy reported in the media. Labeling something "controversial" is not necessarily a POV issue; in this case, it simply implies that there has been polarization around these individual events for the same reasons. -OrbitHawk (talk) 15:07, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The topic is notable, even despite the controversial word. NPOV, well, it is controversial. A template is a useful navigational tool here. We are not the ones making the connection, numerous media are doing so. The nom is however right that a dedicated, main article would help to prove that (hint for interested editors). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:54, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I just don't think this is needed or relevant, especially without a parent article as noted above. HanselnGretel (talk) 02:12, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, better off as a section in the article African-American history.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:53, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. How about expanding something like Black Lives Matter or another movement-related article as the parent? The current protest movement is perhaps the most appropriate context to consider the "2010s" aspect, given that incidents of this kind are certainly not new.--Pharos (talk) 12:05, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - hold it, please. I expect some votes will be nullified because the parent article has been created. The table itself is complete, but perhaps some prose can be written connecting the article to Black Lives Matter, Ferguson unrest etc. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 07:44, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Same rationale as Millionsandbillions. NickCT (talk) 19:32, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• In addition to my comment above, I'd like to note that the recent creation of a parent article wouldn't change my vote, as the parent article was clearly created with the sole intent of affecting this deletion conversation. Let the parent article survive its own deletion discussion, then we can remake this template. NickCT (talk) 20:30, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - to those saying 'there is no parent article', the parent article has been created. And I don't think the template is redundant to the article. You could argue the template is POV, but it covers a legitimate topic, and all the deaths linked in the template have been controversial and often linked with each other in the media. The name is a bit clumsy, but I think it's worth keeping. Robofish (talk) 21:34, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note that parent article is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of controversial killings of African Americans in the 2010s. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 14:22, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I contributed to the parent article, List of controversial killings of African Americans in the 2010s, which is now also nominated for deletion. While I understand concerns that criteria for inclusion are not well-defined, the navbox is still useful, and the List article should be improved and/or merged, perhaps with Black Lives Matter. —Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 21:09, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - There is now a well-sourced parent article, and the qualifications for inclusion would be controversy/polarization regarding these events as cited by news organizations worldwide. The whole point is that with any of these given events, question has been raised as to whether race was a factor. In some cases it may have been, and in some cases perhaps not; that simply isn't for us to decide, but the fact that there has been polarization in regards to race in these events is what merits their inclusion in this navbox. If any of the entries in the navbox do not meet this clearly defined criterion, then they do not belong there, but I currently see plenty of relevant inclusions. The only thing arbitrary about inclusion here might be the date range. --OrbitHawk (talk) 14:56, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable topic for African-American history and a reason for social protests and riots. Dimadick (talk) 09:50, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Tentative delete - per my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of controversial killings of African Americans in the 2010s (which also imply that the content could live as similar template of different scope/name). If the parent article is kept and not renamed, however, I withdraw my "Delete" here. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:36, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - "Controversial" is not IMO a well defined inclusion criteria. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:09, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The article that shares the name with the template got deleted, so why should the template stay? --Booyahhayoob (talk) 02:07, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this is a useful navigational template for a notable issue for many readers. --Tom (LT) (talk) 02:31, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per my arguments at the AfD. ― Padenton|✉   13:33, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Ideally there would be a article on the subject, but this navbox meets the other four criteria of the guideline, so keeping it would seem to be advisable as it would neatly take the place of 'see also' sections in these articles and help readers find related content. A subject being controversial is not a valid deletion reason, however I have no prejudice against renaming the template to something more neutral, if such a title exists.- MrX 19:55, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I don't know about the cases that happened before Trayvon Martin, but that case, plus all the others in 2014 and afterward are definitely notable in terms of the civil rights and race topics in U.S. history. As such, I think this template should be kept to list them all. Libertarian12111971 (talk) 03:52, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No inclusion criteria. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 06:05, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, template's article has been deleted; categories would be preferable. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use ((re|Jc86035)) to reply to me 09:35, 1 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 keep after refactoring. (nac) Alakzi (talk) 21:49, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Generates an inline external link to registration entries at various aviation registration authorities based on aircraft registration, it provides no added value to the article and ignores the fact that aircraft registrations are not unique so it can also generate the wrong information. On the rare occassions it needs to be used as a reference then normal cite web templates can be used. MilborneOne (talk) 11:59, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This has been nominated for deletion before -[1] and kept.Nigel Ish (talk) 15:49, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It has been suggested that this would be far better formated as a reference citation rather than creating an external link, I dont have a problem with using these sites as a reference but creating an external link in the middle of an article doesnt really add anything. MilborneOne (talk) 09:07, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and improve: aviation authorities' registries are the primary source of information with regard to aircraft type, age, owner etc. of any given registered aircraft (even for old, reused registration numbers, the relevant information about previous registrations is still there, at least for the FAA registry), so this template definitely serves a purpose. However, I think it should be improved as follows:
  • Airreg's scope should be restricted to aviation authorities' registries only, roughly in line with the Principle of Least Astonishment. By clicking specifically on an aircraft registration, I would expect to be taken to a source regarding the aircraft registration itself, not e.g. to a file on Aviation Safety Network about the accident involving the registered aircraft, even if the article itself is about the accident (this is also where confusion can arise, in case a reg number is reassigned, after a crash, to another aircraft, which in turn is involved in a notable accident later on; i.e. there's no 1-to-1 correspondence between aircraft registrations and notable accidents).
  • Airreg should generate a {cite web} inline reference, instead of an external link, just like any other reference to a source; there is no reason to resort to an external link, in this case.

I'm happy to give it a go at modifying the template, if I manage to. --Deeday-UK (talk) 19:59, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and improve per Deeday-UK and his offer. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:23, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and improve, also as per Deeday-UK's statement. GeorgeGriffiths (talk) 15:55, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and improve as per Deeday-UK's comment. --AEMoreira042281 (talk) 02:20, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Edit the template so that it creates a link to the aircraft registration article. Mjroots (talk) 19:09, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The 'Aircraft registration' article is already linked by the word 'Registration' in the Infobox 'aircraft occurrence' and typically by the same word in the article body, when present, e.g. "The accident airplane, registration N93119, [...]", so linking the same article also through the Airreg template would create duplication. --Deeday-UK (talk) 21:01, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've created a test template in my sandbox that implements my previous suggestions. For example, with this modified version of Airreg, the code ((Airreg|N|470A)) would produce:

N470A^[1]

adding an entry in the References section, thus:

The same would happen with the handful of aviation authorities that are currently supported (Canadian, Australian etc.) and the template would also be 'fail safe', i.e. if applied to a nationality that is not supported (e.g. German), it simply returns the aircraft registration (so acting as a provision, in case in future that national registry becomes implementable in the template); for example, ((Airreg|D|ARZK)) would simply return

D-ARZK

No other websites are referenced by the template, apart from supported national aviation authorities. I'll update the Airreg template soon, unless there are objections. --Deeday-UK (talk) 19:23, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As original proposer I support your change User:Deeday-UK and as such I think we can close this request, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 19:49, 15 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) 00:39, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

I have never found a useful link from eMedicine dictionary. What these links link to are a one or two line description of something in a website that's saturated with advertising. There's no encyclopedic value in these links, they do not help readers, and there is no reason we should be providing these en masse to users over other dictionaries. These links never provide more information that a stub article provide. Therefore I am proposing deletion. Tom (LT) (talk) 06:43, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is an attempt at content-removal-by-template-deletion. Show consensus to never link to the site concerned, in a more relevant venue (e.g. the spam blacklist), and then propose deleting this template only if and when it is no longer used. Otherwise, the links will be added anyway, and you'll have removed the best method of monitoring them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:00, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment not a very good template. Even for cases like Cytology where it could provide useful information, the template only goes to a search page and not to the exact match article page. looks like it shouldn't ever be used for for references as it lacks author information.  —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 11:00, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even for pages like White matter where EMedicineDictionary has a brief definition, it appears to be an exact copy from Webster's New World Medical Dictionary without attribution. Compare White+matter at eMedicine Dictionary which gives a big list of search results without redirecting to the exact match at http://www.emedicinehealth.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=6018 but compare with: WebMD (2009). "white matter". Webster's New World Medical Dictionary (3rd ed.). Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. p. 456. ISBN 978-0-544-18897-6. ((cite book)): External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help) So even in the best case, there is a much better source that could be cited.  —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 11:40, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete pages should be using Template:EMedicine instead of Template:EMedicineDictionary. It gives reliable medical sources like: Asthma~treatment at eMedicine instead of spam pages.  —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 14:41, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per Chris Capoccia and Tom. Frietjes (talk) 13:31, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Andy Mabbett's reasoning. It's up to content creators whether or not to put these links in articles. Looking at the transclusions I do see some valid uses of this template, such as a reference to synonyms in articles' lead. While it may not satisfy RSMED, using this source as a thesaurus is reasonable. Mamyles (talk) 22:14, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

in every case where you think it's "reasonable" as a dictionary/thesaurus, they should be citing Webster's New World Medical Dictionary as above. It appears this spammy emedicine site copied without attribution.  —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 11:55, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per the nomination reasoning and WP:NOTBURO, while replacing any appropriate citations with a reputable alternative. I trust that Chris or Tom will oversee the orphaning of this template. Alakzi (talk) 12:09, 18 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.