- 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. Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:35, 22 February 2016 (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. Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:35, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Template created in 2005 as a test and appears to have no use at all subsequent to that point. Template appears to be orphaned, save for 2 or 3 user page transclusions. Safiel (talk) 03:10, 24 January 2016 (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. Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:35, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
These templates denote a minor award that is not a defining biographical element for its recipients. These navboxes are therefore unneeded and clutter more pertinent navboxes in the footers of the bio articles on which they are transcluded. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:31, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Cbl62 (talk) 01:37, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nominator's rationale. I might also add that the second, third and fourth navboxes lack a supporting article or list on the specific subject of the navbox per WP:NAVBOX criterion no. 4. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:52, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep ESPN RISE Elite 11. While all of these originate from Student Sports and ESPN, the Elite 11 (high school quarterback recruiting rankings of graduating seniors) has a stand-alone article and is by far the most notable. We already treat quarterbacks differently than other positions, such as via starting QB navboxes. A simple google news search shows the award referenced in many high school recruiting articles by mainstream newspapers, national sports sites in cycle to recruiting coverage, college media guides, and such. Similar coverage exists for the other awards, but they lack associated articles and the coverage is less prevalent. UW Dawgs (talk) 00:22, 30 January 2016 (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. Month-old, unopposed nomination. Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:37, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
| Previous TfDs for this template:
|
The family list is something for an infobox, the remaining three links can easily be put in a "See also" section, if not in the main text itself. Of those three, the link to Maqām Ibrāhīm redirects to tiny subsection in Petrosomatoglyph, leaving actually only two meaningful links. HyperGaruda (talk) 09:24, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Although the following is a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument, I'd like to add that many similar templates were deleted during a previous AfD, this AfD about {Abu Bakr}, and this AfD about {Fatimah}. - HyperGaruda (talk) 20:36, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. HyperGaruda (talk) 20:25, 20 February 2016 (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 no consensus. Or more accurately, not enough information to judge. There's no links here to the prior relevant discussions mentioned, and having looked at the templates, I can't figure out why you'd want a single, often red wikilink in a template, although the practice apparently has a few defenders. No prejudice against a renomination that explains the context. Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:42, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Unused, seems to have been created in error JMHamo (talk) 13:40, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- delete, I added some from the same category after fixing the issue here. Frietjes (talk) 15:10, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I don't understand why the above changes had to occur? - J man708 (talk) 13:54, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, these weren't unused at the time of creation. Frietjes' edit had them taken out, as to "avoid using new fb team templates, which are deprecated". I know this isn't going to win me any friends, but I build a LOT of football pages and find this system a million times more user-friendly than the new system. I'll avoid using the new system as much as possible, especially as other football season pages prior to this new system utilise these "fb templates" aswell. - J man708 (talk) 02:32, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - It's clear that this isn't going to get too many responses. I personally edit a lot of old football articles and these templates really do help me out a lot. They're a lot simpler for me than any alternatives and some of these are utilised quite a few times in different places. Relisting this isn't going to do much, due to the lack of interest, so I ask that they be saved, due to the fact that it saves me a lot of hassle as an article creator. Thanks. - J man708 (talk) 20:55, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: On the one hand, I believe new Fb team templates are deprecated for several reasons, though I haven't actually read the discussions. (Could someone link to it/them, please? JMHamo or Frietjes?) On the other hand, I don't think J man is the only one that still finds them useful. I'm not sure the local consensus is strong enough, though. —PC-XT+ 00:56, 14 February 2016 (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. The claim for keeping mainly lies in the assertion that this is a notable milestone in a player's career. Given that there is no article to corroborate that information, this remains fancruft in the eyes of many. Should an article to this effect be created, I see no reason why it could not be restored, but as of right now there is no compelling reason to keep it. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 04:27, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTSTATS and simply not notable. — Swastik Chakraborty (User talk) 07:03, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I think arbitrary number is not considered as achievement..yes, a template with 100 or more caps must be kept other must be deleted GreenCricket 09:39, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. Fancrufty navbox that especially fails guideline #4 of WP:NAVBOX:
There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template.
The 300-cap version already got deleted. Why would 100 caps be that special, apart from being a perceived likable number in the decimal system (nothing extraordinary about it when written in binary: 1100100)? I do not see any award associated with it... - HyperGaruda (talk) 09:55, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No supporting article or list on the specific subject of the navbox, per WP:NAVBOX criterion no. 4. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 10:01, 22 January 2016 (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 keep, with NPASR if the suggested fixes are not implemented. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 04:22, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Useless for navigation purposes, no clear boundary to prevent obscene growth, little to no evident pattern for users to hop from one topic to the next. See reasons given in prior discussions for similar templates here and here. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 07:07, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not entirely clear on what the objections to the template are, but if it's kept, I'd recommend removing the "Individuals" section. That's the section that's already out of hand and could grow almost infinitely. I guess I'm also wondering why it's useful to have a "white nationalism" template, since the article on the topic seems pretty vague. A template for "white supremacy" and/or "white separatism" might be easier to define and manage within the desired boundaries. Cynwolfe (talk) 01:26, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is not necessary to delete this template, just it has to be improved for better navigation. Some sections could be reduced, but all the template can't be deleted because it's important, the subject is controversial and need to be clarified as best as possible. Navigation template works, I am against of deletion. --Humberto del Torrejón (talk) 18:27, 26 January 2016 (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).