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 userfy. Izkala (talk) 20:11, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:B Flow (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navigation box with only one article. Doesn't aid in navigation between the main article and the song article. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 16:44, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Do not delete. I have some unfinished work that will be added to Template:B Flow. Icem4k (talk) 20:30, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You should finish the work first then create the template. You can always recreate the template when you get it done. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 14:38, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay that is understandable please do Delete it when am done I will recreate it. Icem4k (talk) 14:15, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• delete per "write the articles first". Frietjes (talk) 17:00, 11 May 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. There's no consensus here that FAG is unsuitable as an EL (quite the opposite) and the few !votes that contest ((Find a Grave))'s suitability as a template do so in reference to the former. Izkala (talk) 22:23, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Find a Grave (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template is designed to be placed in the external links sections, however, since it's been repeatedly rejected at WP:RSN as a reliable source, including it runs contrary to WP:ELNO. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:31, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I agree with the nominator. Moreover, to keep the template adds legitimacy to the website, particularly for new editors, and causes more experienced editors to revert the addition based on RS.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:47, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. We should not make it easier to link to unreliable sources. I agree with Bbb23 that this template gives the appearance, especially to new users, that this is an acceptable source. HighInBC 16:52, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Adds no value; information is almost always available from a more reliable source.Glendoremus (talk) 17:18, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Often provides information nearly impossible to find elsewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lee Price (talk • contribs) 16:04, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: This discussion needs to be advertised widely. The template has over 21,000 transclusions. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:58, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not delete. Provided that Find A Grave memorials include useful information not found elsewhere, such as gravestone photos. Billmckern (talk) 19:42, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• It is eseentially a Wiki. It's user contributed material. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:54, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• More than just a wiki. The site exercises editorial control over copyrighted material, especially with the photographs. The gravestone data is literally written in stone, hardly wiki material. – S. Rich (talk) 05:18, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Do not delete Find A Grave provides information not found elsewhere. Thank you-RFD (talk) 20:04, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Could that be because they don't have editorial oversight? This isn't a discussion about blacklisting them. It's only about deleting a template that doesn't belong in the external links sections. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:08, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Just yesterday, I had to revert a citation to Find A Grave because it wasn't a reliable source but I still think we should keep the template for one important reason, Find A Grave has photographs of grave sites and a lot of people are interested in them. Photographs of graves also can go on Wikipedia but to do so, copyright holders have to release their rights to share those photos. Copyright holders who upload their photos to Find A Grave only release those rights to Find A Grave and its parent company, Ancestry. According to Find A Grave's terms of service other websites, books, etc. are not supposed to copy images from the website without the copyright holder/uploader's permission. See here. Libertybison (talk) 20:29, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• So, in other words you like the site. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:13, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying it's a resource that can provide information readers may want/need to know (images of grave sites) that may not be able to be provided by Wikipedia. Libertybison (talk) 22:08, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• So could a lot of other sites that are blacklisted.(and no, I'm not suggesting blacklisting it) Which policy, guideline or MOS is your keep vote based on? Niteshift36 (talk) 01:54, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Although you cannot simply upload an image from FindAGrave without the copyright holder's permission, it is possible to identify the copyright holder and contact them for release of the image for use on Wikipedia with the appropriate permission, where no other image is available. For instance see: [1], which was released into the Public Domain by the copyright holder [[2]]. NotaBene 鹰百利 ^Talk 15:15, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While I do believe that many FindAGrave users would release the image, it might not be possible to contact with some copyright holders; whether they are infrequent users, deceased, changed email address, etc. Libertybison (talk) 18:39, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Do not delete Please keep the template. Users that follow the link know what find-a-grave is usually-(user-edited), it is a great asset to have it right there on pages. I almost always click-through if it is in an article. TeeVeeed (talk) 20:37, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• So, in other words you like the site. Which policy, guideline or MOS is your keep vote based on? Niteshift36 (talk) 21:13, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – This has been discussed at length at Template talk:Find a Grave and elsewhere. If the site is not going to be blacklisted, and I don't think it should, deleting the template is counterproductive. Almost everything written at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 October 5#Template:IMDb name applies here, too. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 20:55, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Except that some of IMDB is actually done by staff and the site can be used for items like cast, crew, producers, dates etc. So IMDB isn't the same. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:15, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, then, once the FindaGrave staff exercises editorial control (as does IMDB), this concern is resolved for the particular webpages maintained by them. Correct? – S. Rich (talk) 05:18, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Do not delete I think some users may be getting a little pedantic. It is hardly a trivial site. Some of the imagery and information available at Find a Grave has been invaluable in my opinion.--Kieronoldham (talk) 22:10, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Which part is pedantic? Following content guidelines, like ELNO? Following policies like RS? I realized some of you like it, but WP:ILIKEIT isn't a valid reason. I've yet to hear a policy based reason for keeping it. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:54, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Niteshift36 and others are mistaken to form a nexus between RS and EL. Nothing in EL demands the standards of RS. Quite the opposite is stated at WP:ELMAYBE. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:38, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The early part of this discussion being dominated by you responding to every last thing has been pedantic, for one. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 22:05, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Do not delete It provides useful and important information that often cannot be found elsewhere. However, since there is limited oversight and cross-checking of the information that may not be up to Wikipedia standards, there should be Wikipedia guidelines on how to utilize Find-A-Grave information, for example, restricting it to "External links" and not permitting it as an in line reference.Ira Leviton (talk) 23:42, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hear hear. Almost invariably, that is how I use Find a Grave (extremely scarce exceptions are direct link to headstone imagery to prove passing dates).--Kieronoldham (talk) 00:17, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• And which policy, guideline or MOS is your keep vote based on? Niteshift36 (talk) 01:54, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well WP:NOTMEMORIAL is a start? It is not the 1st instance of utilization for a reference, but is/can still be a valid alternative.--Kieronoldham (talk) 02:08, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• How on Earth does NOTMEMORIAL apply here? That tells us what Wikipedia is not....and nothing in that section looks like it would support keeping this template. BTW, this discussion is about deleting the template, not whether you can use it somewhere.Niteshift36 (talk) 02:48, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I both know and agree. But F.A.G. usage isn't "promoting" any form of website, and isn't "promoting" any form of sale or redirect. Also, "photographs, of gravestones provide useful information, the biographical and other additional details may not be reliable". External link passage is valid - to my mind - but not a primary reference. I won't lose sleep if consensus goes against myself (and others), but pedantic does spring to mind. Regards.--Kieronoldham (talk) 03:18, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. External links sections allow some links that would not hold up as reliable sources, for example, IMDb film information. I've used Findagrave in the past and found it helpful and interesting. Although I would definitely look for a better source to support info in an article, the Findagrave site has often pointed me in the correct direction. In the nineteen points listed at WP:ELNO, I really don't see anything that would apply to Findagrave, so I would like to hear the nominator's detail on this "charge". This is a useful template that should remain in place.  Stick to sources! Paine  01:28, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Again, IMDB has been held as a RS for some parts, like cast. It isn't for user added content, such as trivia. That's why IMDB is a different case. As for what part of ELNO, 12 is a good start. Since FindaGrave is user generated content, it's nothing more than a Wiki. I'd also say that 1 also applies. Regardless, it's not a Reliable Source, which means it shouldn't be used, much less given it's own template.Niteshift36 (talk) 01:54, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• 12 may apply, but I think 1 is a stretch. It's not a true wiki, and it doesn't even call itself one. External links do not have to live up to Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources, so continually stressing that point just weakens your argument. Let me just state that the times I used the Find A Grave website as a jumping off point to one or more reliable sources, the information at Find A Grave turned out to be quite reliable. So to be specific, while Find A Grave does not meet Wikipedia's standards, that does not mean it's unreliable as a source of information. Besides, it's just a grave finding site, after all.  Stick to sources! Paine  23:43, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• No, it doesn't call itself a Wiki, which means nothing. I've said "essentially a wiki" and "nothing more than a wiki". Wiki is just a title. Not using "wiki" doesn't prevent it from being user generated content. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:36, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It provides useful and important information (photos as primary sources) that often cannot be found elsewhere. Doremo (talk) 02:55, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• And why does it need a template? Niteshift36 (talk) 03:12, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Please see Help:A quick guide to templates to learn why templates are useful. Doremo (talk) 03:25, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Per nominator and Bbb23. Donner60 (talk) 05:13, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It seems by now that a substantial majority are in favor of keeping the template. If that is the result, I am certainly ok with it.. Good points are made below concerning other templates (without necessarily relying on "other stuff exists", I think). I do think that if better sources are available for citations, they should be used. The template might better be used as an external link, as someone suggests below. Also, I would not favor a mass deletion of the template links even if the template were deprecated because many of the links are still likely to be useful and any troublesome uses as citations can be individually changed. Donner60 (talk) 23:19, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Michael Bednarek and Paine Ellsworth. ‑‑Yodin^T 08:28, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment As the original creator of the template, I would prefer to import the Find-a-grave IDs from the template uses into Wikidata (using P535), then remove the template here. We could then automatically add the link to the infobox, the authority control template, or some other "useful Wikidata stuff" template that will undoubtedly come along. Failing that, I would vote "keep". --Magnus Manske (talk) 09:20, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Whether the template is kept or not, these links don't belong in either the infobox or in authority control. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:07, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Sources can be reliable for some things and not for others. Agreed find-a-grave is user generated content but it can be a reliable source, for example for photos of grave markers. Yes it's a primary source for that and using it borders on OR, so it must be used carefully. Kendall-K1 (talk) 11:05, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not delete. It's a nice amenity, and does no harm. I'm sure the readership likes it. Wahrmund (talk) 16:09, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Per Paine Ellsworth. Additionally, as a longtime contributor to IMDB, cast lists and other info frequently IS user-added content. I add and edit cast lists all the time. So the distinction between IMDB and FindAGrave isn't correct. GigglesnortHotel (talk) 17:40, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Gravestone photos are of great use in documenting disputes or uncertainty over historical birth and death dates, an unfortunately common situation. I have corrected many biographical articles on Wikipedia with wrong dates. Findagrave is surely the world's largest collection of such photos. In millions of cases, the photo on Findagrave is the only one available anywhere. If deleting the template means that 21,000 articles lose links to the corresponding FAG page, that would be add a lot of inconvenience, requiring the user to individually look up the person on FAG instead of simply following the link. Yes, the other user-supplied material on Findagrave is not reliable. Perhaps use of the template should be limited to cases where a gravestone photo is included on FAG, and unavailable elsewhere? Kestenbaum (talk) 19:57, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Bbb23, we should not be promoting the use of unreliable sources. Lizard (talk) 21:24, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep excellent source for what cemetery buried in and images of the tombstone. FAG has a mechanism for making corrections. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:50, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: It's no "worse" than IMDB, as others have noted. Muzilon (talk) 03:59, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, with modifications – Find a Grave pages with photos of gravestones are generally considered reliable for their genealogical data and the template aids in listing such pages. The FindaGrave listings 'maintained' by the Find a Grave webmasters can be considered reliable as well, but the data on such pages is generally available via other sources. The modifications needed are simple – remove the 'author', 'access date', and 'work' parameters. The 'author' parameter is inherently unreliable because FindaGrave relies on the usernames supplied by FindaGrave members; the 'access date' parameter does not add any useful info to the reader unless the link is broken; and, the 'work' parameter simply paraphrases what the author (who may not be RS) has supplied. Also, clarifications on the template usage guidance can be modified and strengthened to say rather explicitly that Find a Grave is considered RS only in limited circumstances. – S. Rich (talk) 04:46, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As a EL, Find a grave is fine. When it's used us a reference for anything other than where someone is buried, I edit it out of articles on a regular basis. If I had $1 for every time I've done that I'd probably have $100 or more by now....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:34, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Template is used in external links. And there's no problem in using this site for external links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.6.159.91 (talk) 15:07, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Per Michael Bednarek and Paine Ellsworth. The Find-a-Grave Template provides consistency for readers and editors. Woodlot (talk) 20:32, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - A very useful template widely used in Medal of Honor articles to link to the Claim to Fame: Medal of Honor Recipients section of FAG. - NQ (talk) 20:56, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Even if not useful as a reliable source, it is certainly a viable external link... and it's especially useful for those who like to seek out famous graves. --Midnightdreary (talk) 22:47, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Find-a-Grave is a useful template, and contains information you're an unable to find anywhere else.--Mjs1991 (talk) 00:12, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Fits criterion #4 of WP:ELMAYBE, "Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." Also the only part of WP:ELNO that has been cited is #12, which does not appear to apply. The nominator should cite the relevant point in ELNO that applies. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:14, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• 12 applies. It's little more than an open Wiki. It doesn't really meet MAYBE 4 because it's not knowledgeable sources...it's anyone who registers. But clearly, enough of you have ignored that part of the criteria. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:19, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:ELMAYBE. Bede735 (talk) 02:09, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep again per ELMAYBE #4 Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:52, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a user generated unreliable source. The site does not meet WP:ELMAYBE because the site does not contain information from knowledgeable sources, it only contains user generated material gleaned from other sources or written by the user themselves. The only aspect of the site that is generally up for consideration is the use of photographs of the tomb to establish burial location and date of death. However, if the subject is notable enough for a Wikipedia article, then there would highly likely be a reliable source to provide such information. Allowing users to skip appropriate research and just slap in a link to an unreliable source is not something that we should be encouraging. We restrict links to external sites as it was a founding principle of Wikipedia that it should not serve as a directory (WP:PILLARS / WP:NOTDIRECTORY). We are not the internet we are a general encyclopedia providing curious readers with a reliable, neutral and balanced summary of the main points of a topic. If folks want something else - such as pictures of Aldous Huxley's tomb they can use Google who will provide many, not just from Find a Grave, but other sites such as Flickr, or Google Images, and there are a growing number of alternative sites like Tombfinder, and Gravematters. There is nothing that can be found on Find a Grave that can't be found on Google. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:37, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep another vote per criteria #4 of WP:ELMAYBE. Especially as photographs can be used to confirm dates. As an EL, WP is not inferring the accuracy or reliability of the content, just the source of information on the internet. Just because information is published in a printed book or journal does not insure its accuracy either. NotaBene 鹰百利 ^Talk 15:32, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Mixed Keep I can see why it might be inadvisable, since what is carved on tombstones and what is in public records can conflict, but I can't see why a useful resource should be rejected. Material on Findagrave is derived from physical and public records, both primary sources. That should make Findagrave a secondary source. I hate to bring it up, but we also have templates for ((facebook)) and ((tumblr)), both notoriously unreliable sources which would not be permitted as references, but are still allowed in the External links section. --Auric talk 19:22, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The contributors of Find-a-Grave are at least as competent as the average wikipedian...Lynn (SLW) (talk) 23:10, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Helpful and harmless as an external link. While perhaps not the best source of birth and death dates, it's always nice to have a redundant source to confirm what our other source(s) say. Even so-called reliable sources occasionally make mistakes. We shouldn't go on a jihad (crusade) against the good people at Ancestry.com who are just trying to make a living in this increasingly competitive world. Not everyone has the luxury of being able to work for free. wbm1058 (talk) 23:20, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Someone on another website is spreading misinformation. Just for the record: On September 30, 2013, Ancestry.com announced its acquisition of Find a Grave. Site editor Jim Tipton said of the purchase that Ancestry.com had, "...been linking and driving traffic to the site for several years. Burial information is a wonderful source for people researching their family history....” Ancestry.com planned to bolster the resources dedicated to Find a Grave to "...launch a new mobile app, improve customer support, introduce an enhanced edit system for submitting updates to memorials, foreign-language support, and other site improvements."^[1]

• Keep — removal would cause mass destruction of references now useful to many thousands of articles. →StaniStani 00:33, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• keep information can be WP:Verified. Valid as an index of WP:PRIMARY sources. Not sufficient to show notability of course. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:47, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Many FAG pages meet WP:ELMAYBE, those that don't should simply not be linked. There is no reason to delete the template itself.--Michael White^T·C 01:45, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Useful info. Find-a-Grave is on a par with WP in terms of accuracy, which is good. Carrite (talk) 03:45, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but suggest an RfC on these sorts of links, whether to Find-a-Grave, IMDB or IAFD. I'm of the opinion that this meets ELMAYBE, but if the community determines that this class of site shouldn't be externally linked then we should make a policy to address all of them. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:21, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Deleting this template for linking to an external website will not resolve sourcing issues on poor articles.  — Scott • talk 09:29, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Similar to IMdB in the respect that yes, it's a wiki with user-contributed material, but yes, it is suitable as an external link with all relevant caveats and precautions. Montanabw^(talk) 18:34, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Well hold on. What I want to know is not how reliable the info but how good it is. I grant that they don't have an independent fact-checking operation, but entities with independent fact-checking operations are getting fewer and fewer, and it's quite possible that in ten years there just aren't going to be any, IMO. The fact is is that even TIME and the New York Times are not really that reliable anymore and getting less so every year. So just how bad is the info at Find-A-Grave? Here's what I want to know: of 100 entries picked randomly, what percent have a significant error (wrong vital dates, wrong info in the bio, wrong parents name, that sort of thing)? Is it 10%? If 10 of 100 entries have even a single significant error then we have a problem and we maybe shouldn't be linking to this site. If it's 1% we're probably OK, since after all external links are just "Hey, here's something else too, make of it what you will and we don't guarantee it's perfect". So what is , 1% or 10& or what? Herostratus (talk) 20:29, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The template is an editing convenience. How and where this is used is a separate issue and should not be settled by deletion. Andrew D. (talk) 21:07, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but deprecate I'm afraid Niteshift36 is wrong when he writes that using Find-a-Grave is contrary to WP:ELNO. The site is so full of copyright-violating photos, I believe its use is contrary to WP:ELNEVER. Until the site is blacklisted, there's no reason to delete a template that editors find useful. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:47, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As to "copyright-violating photos", remember their interpretation of fair use is not the same as ours. Fair use does not mean copyright violation. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:24, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. No doubt some instances of this template fall under WP:ELNO or WP:ELMAYBE, per nom. But many others are squarely within WP:ELYES: "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail [...], or other reasons." -- Visviva (talk) 23:53, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. If you honestly believe removing the template is going to cause people to stop putting a link to a persons find a grave memorial, you are deducing the wrong reason for its current popularity here (find a grave has grown in popularity since being managed through Ancestry.com, so only natural its use will grow here) and the outcome of removing the template. I was brought to this page because someone is replacing all the template links with direct links. I guarantee I am not the only one that will continue to use find a grave as an external link, as opposed to a reference. I've only used them for references for burial date/location information when that information is otherwise unavailable, and only when a picture of the gravestone is provided. These are valid entries in the deceased person's infobox, and sometimes find a grave is the only location for that information. Another negative for removing the template is that removing the template eliminates any hope of standardization for these links when they appear. Take a look at all the non-templated uses out there on the wiki. There are so many different formatting styles that it drives me crazy when I come across one. I've changed many to conform to the template style to reduce the clutter. So, if you remove the template, you are still going to see see plenty of find-a-grave links, but you will also see far more ways of it being spelled out when it is linked.--KMJKWhite (talk) 01:04, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Remember, Wikipedia is also considered by many to be unreliable. Thor Dockweiler (talk) 07:03, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. For the sake of our readers. It's all been said above. -- œ^™ 11:38, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Useful for photos of headstones. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 15:57, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The capsule write-ups detailing subjects' key points of notability are, as far as can be determined, basically reliable, especially for individuals who have no Wikipedia entry, but the indisputably unique primary resources are the photographs of headstones. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 18:42, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Convenient and useful as per above ... GELongstreet (talk) 07:28, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Provides vital information for an essential activity beloved of so many Wikipedia editors. Where else can one go, conveniently, to get the information you so desperately need to dance on the grave of a notable person? The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 07:43, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Useful template. We have many templates that assist in linking to sources where the content may not always be ideal, but that is why we have editors. A photo of a gravestone is a photo of a gravestone, it is a useful primary source.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:00, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Of course Wikipedia is not supposed to be based directly on "primary sources". But carving a dead person's name and dates on a big piece of granite, and permanently installing it where anyone can find it and see it, is a form of publication. Like any kind of publication, it may contain errors (e.g. John G. Carlisle's gravestone with the wrong year of birth), but it is at least as public and verifiable as a book in a library. Kestenbaum (talk) 13:39, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• keep The nomination confuses RS and EL standards. Also we do not require RS for all sources. We require RS to support contentious claims in an article, but there is no blanket ban on non-RS sources in addition to this. As such, Findagrave still has its place. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:29, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A template to a non-reliable source that has in many places got erroneous information? Nah. - SchroCat (talk) 15:04, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Template is used in EL sections, which do not have the same standard as material in the body of our articles. BMK (talk) 21:40, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – Wbm1058 and Kestenbaum said about all I could say without burdening you with an excessive wall of text. I've been battling the past 4+ years with various editors who contend that we have all the content we need and it's okay to brush off entire generations of notable figures whose notability and reliable sources to establish that notability happen to fall outside of the limited notice of the 21st-century web. Of course, concepts such as notability and reliable sources far predate the existence of the web, but since these attitudes have pushed us so far in the direction of being a work of fiction as it is, there's perhaps no point in trying to inject any more reality. This talk of blacklisting is simply more of that, as Find a Grave has proven valuable on numerous occasions in identifying not only notable figures from decades past, but pointers to reliable sources which can be verified, even if not via a direct URL. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 22:05, 11 May 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. Izkala (talk) 20:14, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Australian free to air television channels (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:TFD #3: Template is not used anywhere on Wikipedia. WP:TFD #2: This template is redundant as its information is found in the article List of digital television channels in Australia and in the navbox Template:Free-to-air television channels in Australia. Before recent editing to keep information relevant, template went unedited for four years. – Nick Mitchell 98 ^talk 05:08, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "Delete' per nom. Navbox and list seem to handle the group well enough. Montanabw^(talk) 18:37, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per nom. Frietjes (talk) 17:01, 11 May 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. There is significant precedent that three links is too few for a navbox. (non-admin closure) ~ Rob^Talk 06:12, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Navigates only 3 articles. Izno (talk) 02:38, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Doesn't appear that necessary. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:43, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - eases navigation between the three articles. Izkala (talk) 22:25, 11 May 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) ~ Rob^Talk 06:10, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:CT Special Forces series (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navigates between only 3 articles. Izno (talk) 02:36, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Agreed, it is a small and rather insignificant series. Hippo99 (talk) 16:18, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Doesn't appear that necessary. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:43, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - eases navigation between the three articles. Izkala (talk) 22:25, 11 May 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).