The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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).
Commnet it could be converted to cover all stadiums, not "current" ones. -- 70.31.205.108 (talk) 01:54, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete, typically, we don't navigate by defunct association. Frietjes (talk) 00:37, 14 January 2021 (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:ApologetiX
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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).
Most of this template links to redirect (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zebraic). The only "live" links in this template are the links to Christian rock and parody music, which are irrelevant to the subject of this template. Considering moving the "live" links into a "See also" section, and this template remains a collection of non-existent articles. HĐ (talk) 17:07, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NENAN, most links are - in my opinion - fake and misleading. The Bannertalk 21:25, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: all the albums have been redirected to the band's article, the discography also directs to the band's article, and the remaining three links under "Related articles" all lead to articles that make no mention of the band or their music at all. So the band's article is literally the only article that concerns this band in any way, and therefore the template is redundant as there are no other related articles to navigate to. Richard3120 (talk) 19:08, 12 January 2021 (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:French-railway-routemap
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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:Social Justice Warrior
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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).
Template does not seem to have a rational purpose and purports to connect widely-scattered people and things with thinly or unsourced rationales. Furthermore, the term it purports to connect everything to is a clear pejorative, and is applied to these widely-scattered people and things without the slightest hint of a source. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:08, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Lumping BLM, Anita Sarkeesian, MeToo, slacktivism (??), and Antifa together in a navbox is very far from a small, well-defined group of articles that relate to a single, coherent subject and refer to each other, which is the guidance that WP:NAVBOX provides. Really, the only consistent theme is "things that US conservatives frequently dislike", which y'know, is not reasonable as a navbox target. Writ Keeper⚇♔ 15:21, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A general topic with no navbox should have one. Also, you do have points I can't put ANTIFA and BLM but it doesn't need to be deleted --🔥LightningComplexFire🔥 15:28, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A general topic with no navbox should have one--why do you say that? WP:NAVBOX say that "the use of navigation templates is neither required nor prohibited for any article", and in practice, I think it's quite common for general articles to not have one. Writ Keeper⚇♔ 15:32, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It annoys me to see articles without one, like my mind can't even handle it --🔥LightningComplexFire🔥 15:34, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A neologism isn't generally an appropriate topic for such a template. Listing individuals raises WP:BLP concerns given that it's plainly pejorative, and the connection to several other topics listed is unclear or dubious. If you remove the BLPs and the topics whose main articles do not even mention the neologism, there's essentially nothing left. --Aquillion (talk) 17:21, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't think it really needs one; an article can exist without a navbox. They are not intertwined in a very special way. This navbox is also centric towards the US, and doesn't list the other global SJW-related articles. GeraldWL 10:31, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for being so broad as to be useless. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 09:53, 9 January 2021 (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(s) or module(s) 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 no consensus. Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 17:36, 14 January 2021 (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(s) or module(s) 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:Miss Universe Organization
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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).
Template is no longer needed. The Miss Universe Organization no longer owns Miss USA or Miss Teen USA, so the template would only serve to include Miss Universe, which is wholly unnecessary. { [ ( jjj1238 ) ] } 22:48, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:11, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nigej (talk) 18:04, 15 January 2021 (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:Zee Rishtey Awards
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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).
Keep, there is still navigational purpose in the template. This helps navigate between the winners of the Zee Rishtey Awards. Techie3 (talk) 07:20, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:11, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We don't need navigation based on non-notable common criteria? Can i have a navigation template for people with black hair? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 13:52, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No useful purpose now that the main article has been deleted. Nigej (talk) 18:06, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It both violate several off the WP:NAVBOX criteria and would not meet WP:OCAWARD with me believing that the relevance requirements for a decently intrusive navbox should be higher than for a basically invisible category. --Trialpears (talk) 09:01, 18 January 2021 (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:Taiwan Dancer aircraft
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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).
Navbox with just one link. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:25, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: When I started this navbox I was hoping that I would be able to start articles for the redlinks, but no refs were found. - Ahunt (talk) 13:31, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@The Bushranger: It is consensus here that navigation boxes need to link to articles. One link navboxes are routinely deleted at TFD. Here is just one[1] of many examples Where does one link navigate to?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 01:05, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly useless as a navbox, does not actually navigate anything. * Pppery *it has begun... 16:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:11, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, only 1 link. Nigej (talk) 18:07, 15 January 2021 (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:CC-EarthRef.org
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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, redundant to ((Cc-by-4.0)), does not exist on Commons FASTILY 05:57, 7 January 2021 (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(s) or module(s) 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).
Unnecessary navbox. All 4 articles already link to and from one another even without it. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 00:39, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I had intended to create another page for MacKenzie's single "About You" in the coming days. Perhaps this would merit keeping the template? Yeehaw45 (talk) 01:33, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have since made that page, now I believe there is sufficient reason to keep the navbox.Yeehaw45 (talk) 03:48, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep, now navigates between five articles. Frietjes (talk) 00:39, 14 January 2021 (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).