February 17
Template:Table of Tunisian governorates
- 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The result of the discussion was withdrawn. Template allows use of subtemplates and parameters, so I'm going to peruse the table for other uses instead. PanchoS (talk) 02:14, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Subst to the only page transcluding this template. PanchoS (talk) 23:16, 17 February 2016 (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 relist to Feb 25. Primefac (talk) 01:51, 25 February 2016 (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 keep. Navbox has valid links now, so other reasons will be needed for a new TFD. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 01:45, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable template Qed237 (talk) 19:26, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep no deletion rationale provided. Templates have no notability criterion (otherwise how would we rate the notability of ((afdnote)) ? ) If you want to delete Fittipaldi Automotive you need to use WP:AFD. Since Fittipaldi Automotive exists as an article, this topic has a prima facie case of notability. -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 04:48, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep, invalid and POV rationale. --Cavarrone 06:32, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep templates could be said to have "referred" notability in the case of F1 teams, related to the notability of the team. In this case the team competed over eight seasons and achieved some (albeit minor) success. The template would be of sufficient use over enough pages for it to be retained. Just as an aside, the fact that there is a team article doesn't necessarily mean a template is desirable. E.g. Amon where a template would have no uses. Eagleash (talk) 07:47, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I'm not familiar enough with the subject to judge notability. It's usually an AfD matter, since navboxes are about navigation. This one is currently transcluded in only 3 articles, however, so it could be argued that this template is premature. It could be deleted as premature if the red links are not notable enough to be created soon. If it had one or two more transclusions, I'd go along with keep for now. If turning the red links blue will take a while, userfication might be best at this point, until there are more articles to navigate. Then it can be restored easily without deleting for now. —PC-XT+ 09:54, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I've got a draft of the FD01, FD02, FD03, FD04 and F9. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.21.251.92 (talk) 16:59, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I've got a draft of the F6 and F9. FD01, FD02 and FD03 are redirects, FD04 is an article.88.106.226.207 (talk) 12:35, 20 February 2016 (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).
Template:Masters Champions League
- 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) 00:15, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This template currently links to only one MCL article (currently at merge discussion) after an involved club has been decided to be deleted at AfD (see here). No "players article" exist (and I dont think it should, even club was deleted), and there is no need for a template that links only to a seasonal article (under discussion) and "related topics". Qed237 (talk) 16:44, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and recreate if the league actually warrants a template at some point - which is clearly not the case just now. There are currently 2 articles - quite possibly one - that might link to this. The "Related" topics aren't actually related at all and should be done away with anyway - it's only this TfD notice that's stopping me from killing that entire row immediately. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:49, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Just not needed. --Dweller (talk) 17:01, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as it is not needed. This is a two-week holiday for older players to earn some cash before hanging up their gear for good. It will be a footnote to their career at best, so a myriad of templates linking to articles that don't exist is unnecessary clutter. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 01:02, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for now. Currently there's only 1 series, and so this template is pointless. In a few years time if there's been 3 or 4 series then it might be useful, and can be recreated then. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:47, 23 February 2016 (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 deprecate and mark historical. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 01:47, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No longer needed. WP:NFCR was closed down and the template is no longer used. Stefan2 (talk) 16:44, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Depreceate and mark historical with a transclusion error applied, indicating the correct current template (FFD) -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 04:57, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Deprecate and mark historical per .135 —PC-XT+ 05:08, 18 February 2016 (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).
Template:Ouachita Baptist Tigers bowl game navbox
- 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) 00:09, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Navbox with just one link. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:05, 17 February 2016 (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).