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. Primefac (talk) 02:20, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:International Institute of Information Technology (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

There is nothing connecting these universities other than the name, they are not part of any central organization. This is cause for a disambiguation page, not for a navigation template. Muhandes (talk) 23:13, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom.--Avg W (talk) 16:52, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the creator of this template has removed it from the articles: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] with the edit summary "removed template ((International Institute of Information Technology)) as is meaningless template", but from some reason they refuse to join this discussion (or any other discussion for that matter). I suppose it should have been a simple case of WP:G7. --Muhandes (talk) 15:16, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daask (talk • contribs) 22:11, 11 April 2018 (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 replace relevant uses with ((Missing information)) and removing instances where it is not clear why the template is being used, before deleting. Primefac (talk) 23:41, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The purpose of this tag is supposed to be to identify important information that is missing from an article or section. That purpose is far better served by the ((Missing information)) template. Far too often, this tag is simply placed at the top of short articles with no explanation given.[6] My suggestion would be to deprecate use of the tag and migrate any uses that include a "reason" parameter to ((Missing information)). Once that is done, any remaining uses should be removed and the template should be deleted or redirected. Kaldari (talk) 16:32, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:41, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. startTerminal (haha wow talk page) 19:48, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 23:10, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Template:Missing information. Lojbanist ^{remove cattle from stage} 02:05, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, incomplete is a more general template. It is easier to use than others and I think this niceness is an advantage in that the contributors may mark articles as incomplete and then other contributors may clarify precisely what needs to be done. Gryllida (talk) 05:47, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Per Gryllida. This template is simple, and easy to use, and more common than Template:Missing information. We should have both, though I am OK having WP encourage editors to use the "Missing information" template. --1990'sguy (talk) 13:44, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The incomplete tag is a simple and quick to use, and particularly handy when sifting through a large number of articles, since you don't have to detail individually what's missing from each one--other editors can figure that out. There's room for both tags. Phediuk (talk) 01:10, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Maintenance tags should all require elaboration from the tagging user to make them useful. A generalised incomplete tag serves little purpose as arguably all articles are incomplete in some way. SFB 15:26, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support merge. Chicbyaccident (talk) 20:20, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: It's useful as a general template when there's no need to further explain what's missing from the article as it's self explanatory, such as saying a list with a defined criteria is incomplete. Clyde1998 (talk) 13:24, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support merge. Contributors shouldn't have to guess at what other contributors meant. Doctor Whom (talk) 16:14, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per SFB and Doctor Whom Daask (talk) 22:10, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for the reason given by Kaldari --Haptic Feedback (talk) 17:18, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support although flag this as a reason to convert to ((Missing information)). We have an persistent problem of tag-bombing articles with overall tags that are unexplained. This is one of the offenders. A ((Missing information)) would hopefully encourage some more specific details of just what isn't there. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:54, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Maybe if the merge does happen, set up specific reasons there is missing information on those pages and it probably will help encourage users to help those articles out. BattleshipMan (talk) 03:41, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - This is all well and good for standard ((Incomplete)) at the top of an article. It won't quite fly for ((Incomplete|Section)) in the body of an article. Maybe ((Expand section)) can be used for that case. Before ((Incomplete)) is deleted or redirected, someone needs to figure this out for existing uses. Or just leave it. ~Kvng (talk) 02:21, 17 April 2018 (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; deleted as G2 by SpacemanSpiff (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 08:05, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Ramanavami famous festival (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not a template but a personal essay. MT Train^Talk 03:37, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete Does not appear to be used for templating purposes. talk to !dave 09:10, 7 April 2018 (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. Primefac (talk) 02:19, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Siamzone drama (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

New template created without documentation. It's presumably intended as an external link template like ((IMDB title)), but Siamzone, a Thai-language website, is not an appropriate external link per the WP:External links guideline, so there wouldn't be any appropriate uses for this template. Paul_012 (talk) 00:28, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NONENGEL--Avg W (talk) 17:10, 8 April 2018 (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).