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) TheTVExpert (talk) 14:46, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:2020–21 Primeira Liga table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No longer needed after template moved to article Boothy m (talk) 23:09, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom.--Tom (LT) (talk) 23:50, 13 July 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 result of the discussion was delete but can be recreated if more articles are written. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 13:24, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redundant – the only two blue links apart from the discography redirect to the band's article, so there are no entries for individual albums at all, and therefore nothing to navigate. Speedy deletion was declined. Richard3120 (talk) 14:29, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. The guidelines say that even if it were to violate some part of the namespace guidelines, and I have to read those guidelines pretty liberally to find any applicability to the content of this navbox, the second condition that it can't be altered to be in compliance is surely untrue, with seven albums, four compilations, ten members, and a discography. One of the links was improperly blanked and converted to a redirect to the main subject as non-notable, despite being non-stub and properly referenced to multiple reliable sources. There's definitely a lot of room for growth in terms of linking more content here, even if it is a bit on the lower end in terms of current navigation. VanIsaac_WS^cont 19:53, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I completely disagree – we shouldn't be keeping a navbox just because somebody, someday might possibly write articles for the entries in it. In fact somebody did try writing articles for some of the albums, and all but one was redirected because of a lack of reliable sources, so it's clearly not going to be easy to create articles for this navbox. The articles should exist first, then the template should be recreated. Richard3120 (talk) 20:05, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Turns out there was a second improper blank and redirect of an article in here as well. The template now has five independent blue links, with one of them pretty spurious. Add in a few appropriate redirects to section, and this should be a pretty fully fleshed-out navigation template. The TFD guidelines are written to judge templates on the basis of their ability to meet criteria, not simply on the current state, and this is a pointed example of why. VanIsaac_WS^cont 21:19, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There was nothing improper about the redirect at all – apart from the RS Indonesia source, what you call "reliable sources" are blogs. It has four blue links, not five, (apologies, I now realize you were including the band's name at the top of the template) one of which is to a record company, which is a completely useless link for the band itself. So we now have the link to the band's article, to their discography article, to one album which passes notability, and another which doesn't. Richard3120 (talk) 21:55, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the template has now been cut to just the records which actually have links, and the restored article for the disputed album has now been sent to AfD, which if deleted would leave this template with just one album and a discography article. Richard3120 (talk) 22:15, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm confused. Where was the consensus in this discussion to drastically alter the template in the middle of a TFD?? VanIsaac_WS^cont 22:45, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanisaac: I wasn't responsible – I just thought it would be fair to notify this TfD that it had occurred. Richard3120 (talk) 22:51, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, can be recreated if more notable content is written. Frietjes (talk) 20:14, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - Four bluelinks is pretty close to the completely arbitrary threshold of five set in WP:NENAN. But NENAN is not a policy or guideline, so I see nothing special about the number five in particular. Four seems good enough to me. --NYKevin 23:02, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Also, if people wish to argue that two of those blue links ought to be deleted, well, AfD is over there. Come back when the template is actually depopulated.) --NYKevin 23:04, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@NYKevin: at least one of the blue links wasn't there when the TfD nomination was made. Richard3120 (talk) 23:32, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see what that's got to do with anything. If it's viable, then it's viable. This isn't a discussion of whether nominating for TfD was a Good Idea; it's a discussion of whether the template should continue to exist. In its current form, I think the the answer is "maybe, leaning yes." If AfD decides to delete or merge the two bluelinks which are currently under discussion over there, then the answer changes. But that hasn't actually happened (yet). --NYKevin 23:36, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The entire point is that it wasn't viable before, in my opinion, because the links weren't there. Richard3120 (talk) 00:10, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't understand what "before" has to do with this discussion. We're talking about "now." --NYKevin 15:25, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That if the template hadn't been altered more than once since I nominated it, then it would indeed have made more sense to wait until AfDs had been carried out. As it is, I'm inclined to agree with you as of the present moment in time, perhaps the AfDs should run their course first, and then renominate this template if it is closed as keep before those AfD results – I'm still convinced 100% that it's entirely redundant. Richard3120 (talk) 15:37, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Conditional delete - If the articles are deleted at AfD then delete this template. --Gonnym (talk) 12:20, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It's premature. The articles that do exist just aren't related enough to justify a navbox yet. --Bsherr (talk) 02:24, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete without prejudice regarding recreation when the template has been filled in with at least some reasonable number (5 is good) of links that are highly-related. There are only two such links at present (the band and album). --Izno (talk) 04:54, 27 July 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 result of the discussion was relisted on 2020 July 27. Izno (talk) 18:30, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Module:ISO_639 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Module:ISO_639_name (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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:06, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:WikiProject The Clash Welcome (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Substed template that was used once in 2010 and not since for an inactive WikiProject. Izno (talk) 16:22, 13 July 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 result of the discussion was relisted on 2020 July 23. (non-admin closure) --Trialpears (talk) 20:22, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Figure_skating_competition_6.0 (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) TheTVExpert (talk) 14:46, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Figure skating competition CoP (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Izno (talk) 16:09, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom.--Tom (LT) (talk) 23:50, 13 July 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 result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) TheTVExpert (talk) 14:47, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Xfd top (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Xfd bottom (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is unused as far as I can see. There is no documentation to indicate it can/should be substed. I removed its only use using a generic ((atop)) (in fact since that use was misused). It's not used by MediaWiki:Gadget-XFDcloser-core.js. There is one user script for a user who hasn't contributed since 2012. Izno (talk) 15:54, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete In practice, this template is basically unusable, since the various XfD venues don't all use one consistent format. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:18, 14 July 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 result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) TheTVExpert (talk) 14:47, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:1977 tornado outbreaks (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

navbox with single entry. Used in two articles, one of which is the one entry. Serves no useful purpose. noq (talk) 09:11, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom.--Tom (LT) (talk) 23:50, 13 July 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 result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) TheTVExpert (talk) 14:47, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Deletion notice with multiple issues (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template that was part of someone's proposal to bundle deletion notices with article issues for use on mobile. Nothing uses it or links to it in nearly two years of existence, and presumably adoption would require uptake by Twinkle. Raymie (t • c) 01:19, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom.--Tom (LT) (talk) 23:50, 13 July 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 result of the discussion was redirect to Template:Gs/alert. (non-admin closure) Mdaniels5757 (talk) 02:14, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Gs/notification (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Effectively superseded by ((Gs/alert)) (I just removed the only active reference to this template in project space, and that one is much smarter and easier to use). GeneralNotability (talk) 01:02, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to ((Gs/alert)) in case it still has active use. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:32, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Callanecc – Good work on updating Gs/alert to be compatible with all GS, by the way. RGloucester — ☎ 01:36, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment just noting for the record that I'm good with redirect as well - I wasn't sure if redirects worked with templates, otherwise I'd have mentioned that in the nom. GeneralNotability (talk) 12:48, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Template:Gs/alert * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:19, 14 July 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).