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. While valid points for deletion were made I considered them with less weight due to WP:ELYES stating An article about [...] media should link to a site hosting a legally distributed copy of the work. If further discussion about the design about the template or the external link policy is wanted take it to the relevant talk page. (non-admin closure) ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 16:25, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This template is nearly always used to link to copyrighted videos or to link to external sites. These are almost always YouTube or Vimeo, and in line with WP:NOTPROMO, we are effectively advertising video platforms for free. There is no benefit or purpose to having visible links to YouTube or Vimeo (other other hosting websites) that doesn't provide free promotion or risk suggesting that Wikipedia is somehow affiliated with these sites. It would be best to simply remove the template to prevent them from being added to infoboxes. → Lil-℧niquԐ 1- (Talk) - 22:15, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I really don't see the issue. Yes, the videos are copyrighted, but this template should only be used to link to licensed uploads, like those hosted by Vevo on artists' verified YouTube channels. Any uses of this template linking to copyrighted content uploaded by regular users should be removed. Linking to a website is in no way always an endorsement of or promotion for said website. This is like users saying the mere practice of linking to a song or album's streaming page is encouraging users to purchase or listen to it, which I have never agreed with (and WP:AFFILIATE would appear to disagree with too). Ss112 02:30, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per argument above. - DovahDuck (talk) 04:34, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as used in Infoboxes – Links to official videos should be in an "External links" section or in a section where the video is discussed, which is done using ((Youtube)), not this template, which is specifically used in infoboxes. Unrestricted linking in infoboxes can lead to infobox clutter and is contrary to MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE "to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article". As an example, none of the videos is mentioned in this article[1] and the links are gratuitous. BTW, this TdF should be publicized on WT:SONGS, WT:ALBUMS, etc. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:02, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Music videos are an essential part of the overall experience. By the way, this template is used on over 11,000 pages, so I think this TfD should be speedily closed per de-facto Wikipedia practice. There is a de-facto consensus among the Wikipedia authors who work in the music field that this template is valuable. --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:32, 31 December 2019 (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:What Is This?
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. Nabla (talk) 21:05, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Last nomination closed as "no consensus". All but one of the albums redirects to the band, and the members are not primarily known as being members of this band. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:09, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Uanfala: And under what policy should it be speedy closed? There is no rule anywhere I'm aware of that prohibits re-nomination immediately after a "no consensus" close. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:54, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant policy is the deletion policy (quote from WP:DPAFD: After a deletion debate concludes and there is no consensus or the consensus is in favor of keeping the page, users should allow a reasonable amount of time to pass before nominating the same page for deletion again, to give editors the time to improve the page. Renominations shortly after the earlier debate are generally closed quickly. It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting a different outcome.) On a more informal note, if you would like to raise the issue again, it's usually best to ask the closer to reopen the discussion. Immediately starting a new discussion without notifying the previous participants is an instance of WP:FORUMSHOPPING. – Uanfala (talk) 03:10, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - WP:EXISTING says "Red links and redirects should normally be avoided unless they are very likely to be developed into articles" and "Unlinked text should be avoided" so the three links to redirects and the three unlinked "links" should really be removed. WP:PERFNAV probably applies to 4 of the 5 links in this template as well. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:57, 2 January 2020 (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 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).
Texas county navboxes
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 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:A.C. Cuneo 1905 squad
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).
Unused template. Pkbwcgs (talk) 13:36, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 12:27, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete given team is not currently active and so there is no need for a 'current' squad navigation template. This can be restored if/when that changes. GiantSnowman 12:30, 30 December 2019 (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:A.S. Lucchese Libertas 1905 squad
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).
Unused template. Pkbwcgs (talk) 13:35, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 12:27, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete given team is seemingly not currently active and so there is no need for a 'current' squad navigation template. This can be restored if/when that changes. GiantSnowman 12:31, 30 December 2019 (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:A.S. Pro Piacenza 1919 squad
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).
Unused template. Pkbwcgs (talk) 13:31, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 12:27, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete team is defunct so there is no need for a 'current' squad navigation template. GiantSnowman 12:31, 30 December 2019 (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:Sydney New Year's Eve Hosts
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. czar 06:45, 7 January 2020 (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).
WP-list templates
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 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).
Candidates of the Australian federal election, 2016
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 -FASTILY 04:30, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Gonnym (talk) 14:46, 5 January 2020 (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).