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 relisted on 2018 February 9. Primefac (talk) 03:01, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Education_in_the_Isle_of_Man (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Isle_of_Man (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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) Nihlus 00:22, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Cyber Girl of the Year (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template no longer useful as the associated articles are non notable and the article for cyber girl of the year has been deleted Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:09, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- Many entries do not have articles. Those that are blue-linked are mostly up for deletion themselves. K.e.coffman (talk) 14:03, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• keep until Cyber Girl of the Year or the subarticles are deleted, and delete if the subaticles are deleted. Frietjes (talk) 17:01, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. With three blue-link entries, two of which are up for deletion, there is little useful navigation left. • Gene93k (talk) 11:12, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Given the current consensus that the titleholders generally fail notability standards, there is no useful navigational purpose for this template. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 19:25, 3 February 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 soft delete. No opposition. WP:REFUND applies. Primefac (talk) 00:12, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Conflicts in Saudi Arabia detailed map (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. This is a war map template. However, there is no war in Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is involved in Yemen conflict, and there are some skirmishes on the border with Yemen. However, this does not warrant a war map for Saudi Arabia (there is already a war map for Yemen). The Saudi Arabia template should have never been created. Also, the template is fully unsourced. Moreover, many people might put time and effort into a useless and unused template. In any case, I have the code saved on my computer if there is ever a war in Saudi Arabia and we need to re-create this template. I want to note that I am also nominating the associated module for deletion as well: Module:Conflicts in Saudi Arabia detailed map. Tradedia^talk 20:20, 19 January 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 relisted on 2018 February 9. Primefac (talk) 03:01, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Keegan-Michael_Key_and_Jordan_Peele (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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) 00:09, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Soft Wikidata redirect (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Confusing double of ((Soft redirect)) and/or ((Wikidata redirect)). Also, started 18 January 2018, in the middle of a discussion where zero (!) out of ten participants voiced support for this option. There is no need to create this template to illustrate the proposed principle: that can be done with ((Soft redirect)). --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:37, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I do not have a strong opinion whether it should be used like it is currently used (I personally never use soft redirects and oppose their usage in principle), but I object deletion on the ground that the same thing can be done with ((Soft redirect)). We have a lot of templates which do the same things which can be done with other templates; this is a question of usability - typing less saves time, and time is precious, at least for some of us.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:08, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This does not seem to be "typing less". @Ymblanter: can you demonstrate any "typing less" would be the result of this template having a longer name than the one that can be used for the same without the one with the longer name existing? Thks. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:18, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are right, I have overlooked this. Then I would say "delete" provided ((Soft redirect)) can effortlessly (without a need of typing much) would produce the same result (writing "soft redirect to Wikidata" rather than "soft redirect").--Ymblanter (talk) 08:03, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- appears to be a more longwinded duplication of an already-existing template. And consensus over at the RfC is pretty strongly against this as an option. Reyk _YO! 07:24, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep --Francis Schonken again gaming the system by deleting options that he disfavors from an open RFC. The option was added after 90% of the debate had already taken place. This would allow all Wikidata links to be found in one easy search. --RAN (talk) 13:33, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- We should not be encouraging readers to go to the unreliable wikidata. The use of redirect is just a way of circumventing wikipdia's notability guidelines.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:49, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom and per Rusfl0. Yilloslime ^T_C 20:50, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment@Primefac:- keeping this template is an endorsement of linking to wikipedia with the body of an article, something that should not be done. By doing so we are giving the reader the impression that this is reliable information.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:21, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  That debate is happening elsewhere. As I have already stated, this TFD is to discuss this template, and whether or not it should be used on Wikipedia for its intended purpose. Right now half the discussion is simply "we don't like Wikidata so this we don't like this template". Primefac (talk) 02:43, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment (by OP) – still, an unnecessary and confusing double of ((Soft redirect)) and ((Wikidata redirect)). A template being confusing and doing nothing that can't be done with existing templates is imho a valid reason for deletion, irrespective of discussion going on elsewhere about other aspects. If there were only one template with which this one is confusing, it should not necessarily be the object of an AfD discussion: a merge and redirect could be operated without further ado. As there are two different templates (((Soft redirect)) and ((Wikidata redirect))), redirecting to either of them would be confusing, so it remains best to delete this template to avoid further confusion. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:43, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete We have ((Soft redirect)) to cover that (anyway sporadic) use. Any advantage of being able to find the WikiData soft redirects is removed because people would use ((Soft redirect)) anyway (or just directly (wiki-)link without template). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:27, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Mostly as per Dirk. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:25, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A discussion at RFD for one page that was soft-redirected to Wikidata ended in deletion, based on the rationale that such soft redirects to Wikidata aren't desired here. There is no value to a template whose purpose is to create such undesirable pages. Based on the outcome of that one discussion, I've initiated another discussion for the other such pages that Richard Arthur Norton created, at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 February 1#Cyrus Bervick Durand. Largoplazo (talk) 22:20, 1 February 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).