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. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 05:36, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Basketball Fans (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Although I'm not familiar with how Templates work on Wikipedia this doesn't seem particular notable. I was unable to find similar templates for football, baseball, or soccer though I might have been looking in the wrong place. I'm not sure I see the utility in this template. SQGibbon (talk) 22:46, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't seem like a notable or important distinction, besides the assertion would have to be mentioned & sourced within every single biographical article it is appended to...seems mostly like a bit of trivia. Shearonink (talk) 07:25, 10 July 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 delete. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 05:37, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Tailchaser's Song (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is populated by redlinks and redirects. Other than a single character article I also just nominated for deletion, only the main work uses the template. There is very little chance of it actually being populated by articles. TTN (talk) 21:16, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree. I think I created most of the articles for the template and the template itself originally years ago, but at the time did not understand how the other articles failed notability. I had actually been considering proposing the remaining article and this template for deletion myself. Nat2 (talk) 00:25, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As of now, the other character page has been deleted, and this template serves effectively no purpose. Nat2 (talk) 02:28, 15 July 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 delete. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:00, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Speed (film series) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Given that two of the links are redirects to the film articles, this is a completely unnecessary template for 2 films and one notable character. (The 4th link is to an episode that spoofs the films, but that's it). And as there's no indication of any further sequels in the work, there's no real point for this template. MASEM (t) 17:23, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Besides the two film links and redirects there are only two other links in the template, both of which are linked in context from the two film articles. The template is completely superfluous. Betty Logan (talk) 19:56, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not enough links....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:59, 10 July 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 merge. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:02, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Infobox KHL team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox hockey team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

not much in the KHL team template that's not already in the generic hockey team template. so, no real reason for keeping a second infobox template. just merge them. Frietjes (talk) 21:51, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The same can be said about Template:Nationalliga Team and Template:Infobox Pro hockey team as both are useless and rarely used. – Sabbatino (talk) 10:31, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to consolidate, though I'll drop a note at the Ice Hockey WikiProject for more input... —PC-XT+ 20:28, 9 July 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 delete. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 19:17, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:EaglesEdBlock (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:TexansEdBlock (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is a "role model" award. It's very unlikely that anyone would want to navigate between these players on the basis of winning this award. Fails #3 and #5 of WP:NAVBOX, at the very least. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:54, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete even though I might use this, it isn't one of the most defining things about being a player, and I'm afraid keeping would contribute to navbox creep —PC-XT+ 06:32, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unlikely to be used for navigation. Lizard (talk) 03:08, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per PC-XT's reasoning. Additionally, this certainly meets the criteria set forth under disadventages, specifically #3 and #4. -- The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 22:25, 27 July 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).