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).

The result of the discussion was Delete. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 16:17, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Adelante (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This navbox is no longer needed, as all of Adelante Media Group's stations have been sold and the navbox has been removed from all articles using it (and replaced with navboxes for the stations' new owner, when available). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:52, 22 October 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).

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).

The result of the discussion was Delete. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 03:06, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Fiji Squad 2014 OFC U-20 Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Squad Templates shouldn't be created for minor tournaments; U-20 tournaments are minor. Joeykai (talk) 22:01, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - previous precedent as noted by Joeykai. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 11:04, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 11:04, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - not required. GiantSnowman 11:47, 25 October 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).

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) BethNaught (talk) 07:54, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Lifer (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template is unused, and its preferred meaning of Lifer is a deleted article. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:10, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not in use, not useful. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 22:23, 27 October 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).

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).

The result of the discussion was Delete. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 03:37, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Alley Dwelling Authority (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This appears to be an article rather than a template, but we already have an article at Alley Dwelling Authority. DexDor ^(talk) 19:02, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not a template, not useful. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 22:20, 27 October 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).

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).

The result of the discussion was delete after substitution. The table itself is valid, but it is only used on two pages; those two pages can fairly easily be updated/edited as necessary. Primefac (talk) 06:07, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:FIFA U-17 World Cup - Awards (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Non-notable youth tournament JMHamo (talk) 18:55, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 18:56, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Why? I just created because its information was used in different articles: FIFA U-17 World Cup and Records and statistics in the FIFA U-17 World Cup. If you deleted it, put its information in the articles again.Luizengmec (talk) 19:04, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not required. GiantSnowman 15:28, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - While the tournament itself is notable, it does not confer notability to the participants per WP:NFOOTY. However, at the risk of being accused of invoking WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, I note that no other FIFA tournament has such a template in its Wikipedia article. If there is no inherent notability for such a template for the FIFA World Cup or the FIFA Women's World Cup, which DO confer notability on the participants, then there is no inherent notability for this template. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 11:01, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• There are own articles to FIFA World Cup and FIFA Women's World Cup: FIFA World Cup awards and FIFA Women's World Cup awards. Luizengmec (talk) 21:00, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those awards were for senior tournaments. Per consensus at WP:FOOTY, youth tournaments do not confer notability, therefore there is no inherent notability in this list. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 12:31, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't agree. Some youth tournaments are most important that some senior tournaments. Football at the Olympics is under 23. Luizengmec (talk) 13:31, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you look at WP:NFOOTY, participation in a WP:FPL or in "any Tier 1 International Match, as defined by FIFA, (including the Olympics)" confers notability. No other youth tournament does. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 13:35, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • FIFA U-17 World Cup is a tournament organized by FIFA and it is most important that many professional leagues. The awards are in FIFA's official website (http://www.fifa.com/fifa-tournaments/awards/index.html). Luizengmec (talk) 00:19, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• So what? WP:ITEXISTS JMHamo (talk) 00:25, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, the FIFA U-17 World Cup is organized by FIFA, but it is not a Tier 1 tournament. FIFA defines a Tier 1 International Match as any "International Match in which one of the teams participating is the first Representative Team (“A” Representative Team), a Scratch Team, or a Club Team that participates in one of the two highest divisions of a Member according to the national competition hierarchy of the Member concerned." A scratch team is defined as "a team consisting of players not registered to the same club or Member, and/or composed of players who are no longer duly registered with one of the Members as they have finished their football career as a professional and/or amateur player." U-17 teams do not meet the definition of an "A" Representative Team; rather their matches meet the definition of a Tier 2 match, "any International Match in which a Representative Team, other than a Member’s first Representative Team ("A" Representative Team) participates and which is not a Tier 1 International Match." All quotes are taken from FIFA's regulations. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 17:03, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Luizengmec (talk) 01:33, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It would be better to just add that table in, without it being a template Matt294069 is coming 02:44, 9 November 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).

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:46, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Laff alert topicon (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template, by appearance a cousin to ((Foolicon)). Supposedly meant for users who are "overly humorous on their userpage". I'm a supporter of good humour and happy to see that no editor feel they are overly humorous and need this useless template. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 18:50, 22 October 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).

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:45, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Not topicon (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused with zero transclusions. Template serves no purpose. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 18:29, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Unnecessary and unused. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 10:46, 25 October 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).

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).

The result of the discussion was Delete. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 03:02, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Abed abed in arabic (عابد عابد (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not really a template. Could this be CSDed? DexDor ^(talk) 17:28, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not a template, not useful. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 22:19, 27 October 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).

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).

The result of the discussion was No consensus. The discussion is centered around the Skeptoid podcasts being a valid ELINK, with no clear consensus either way. Should a consensus determine that it is not a valid ELINK, then re-nominate listing that discussion. If it is valid, then it stands along with other templates like ((Findagrave)) Primefac (talk) 21:26, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Skeptoid (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A template used to link episodes of an arbitrarily selected podcast. It's a good podcast and has a long history but it's still just a podcast. Guy (Help!) 10:45, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I suppose the real question is whether or not it would be an appropriate external link. If it is, then the template's fine. If we shouldn't be linking to it in the first place, though, then it isn't. I think Dunning is noted for having solved a few mysteries - lines in Death Valley, etc, which may well push this one into the grounds of important source in a few cases, where other sources point back to him. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 11:44, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I first encountered Brian Dunning when I was developing FileMaker databases for fun and profit. I listen to the podcast and like it, but his notable work has been published in book form and can (and should) be cited as such. Guy (Help!) 22:10, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - a template like this gives an inappropriate level of importance and tacit endorsement to what is after all a podcast by a figure of dubious reliability, despite the occasional good piece. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:45, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete being used to spam Wikipedia Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:01, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You may dislike this template but please do not mass undo my edits including ones that do not have anything to do with the template. It comes close to harassment and I have undone your undos. Please refrain from changing pages until the future of Template:Skeptoid is decided. —JonathanDP81 (Talk | contribs) 16:27, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and check all the articles it links to for verification that the external links policy/citation policy is being adhered to. jps (talk) 13:58, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is entirely harmless. It just a template for properly and consistently formatting ELs, not a navbox or other prominent display. This is no different than, say, Template:Findagrave. Unless we are saying that we shouldn't have these links in EL, then there is zero reason to delete this. A template providing consistent formatting is not an "endorsement". Gamaliel (talk) 14:38, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I wrote this template five years ago in order to standardize links to what I consider a good info source. What is the problem with this? How is adding links to further information that contains its own citations "spamming Wikipedia"? Is "a good podcast with a long history" not notable enough for you guys? —JonathanDP81 (Talk | contribs) 16:08, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• More factors to consider Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Skeptoid shows that this template is not highly used. However, a quick spot check does not show it being used as a reference, but as an external link. In the few cases where Skeptoid is a valid reference, it's formatted differently. On the whole, I suspect the places where it's a valid external link per Wikipedia:External_links will be limited to the cases where Dunning is recognised as an expert on the subject, which is only a small number. On the whole, I'm leaning delete as I suspect the number of valid uses of it in an external links section will be low. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 17:59, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Doc James. Geogene (talk) 19:18, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. The template can be questioned as a link to a site created mostly for the purpose of pro-science advocacy, rather than simply education. However, it seems to generally provide a popular science type description of the subject that may be helpful for readers. My very best wishes (talk) 23:10, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete EL template are great in general, but mostly for at least moderately widely used sources. This link doesn't seem like it would pass WP:EL in any article, however. —Ruud 20:05, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:EL - that is what I checked before voting here. Even if this is not RS (which is something debatable), I think this site belongs to Links to be considered #4 (Sites that ... contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources) - after reading what this site provides on a couple of subjects. What kind of Links to be avoided do you think it belongs to? The info by site seem to be "mainstream", sourced, and well written. It is usually not "neutral" in tone, but this is probably the only problem I can immediately count... My very best wishes (talk) 12:47, 8 October 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).