Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 September 27

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 27

[edit]
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, with NPASR if the currently linked pages are deleted. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 00:35, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough links for this navbox. Once enough blue notable links are added I would support recreation. UCO2009bluejay (talk) 00:25, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Two more wikilinks have been added since this nomination was made, which may change opinions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 23:00, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Courtesy ping for UCO2009bluejay and Corkythehornetfan per my relist comments above. Primefac (talk) 23:06, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – as long as others are making articles like this (which will more than likely never be expanded and/or even if it is, it'll be 5-10 yrs from now), my opinion won't change... even though it has 3 articles (excluding the one I mentioned), but general standard is 4. Thanks for the courtesy ping, Primefac! Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 23:36, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep, connects 4 articles. Frietjes (talk) 16:34, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment shouldn't that article linked by corky go up for AfD. Look I really like the work Cake does but in this instance unless there are four or five legitimate notable quarterbacks to link I won't withdraw my nomination. I am tired of the WikiProject linking outside articles to AfD proposals and others types of discussions in order to keep the proposed deleted item, but they never add them to the WParticle in question. If it isn't in the article to establish notability it isn't notable.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 14:53, 29 September 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).

Various SUN TV timeslot navboxes

[edit]
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) Primefac (talk) 01:22, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NAVBOX and WP:NOTTVGUIDE. Seem to group together TV series that only have timeslot in common. Rob Sinden (talk) 13:25, 27 September 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. Test page. WOSlinker (talk) 12:24, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Supposed to be only for the userboxes for User:Extendon. No transclusion found either. NgYShung huh? 09:38, 27 September 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 Relisted on 2016 October 8 (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 01:04, 8 October 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 speedy delete under WP:CSD#G7. — ξxplicit 01:35, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No useful purpose and probably duplicates and existing template, which I am still searching for JMHamo (talk) 09:28, 27 September 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 speedy delete under WP:CSD#G7. — ξxplicit 01:35, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No useful purpose and just hard coded text JMHamo (talk) 09:28, 27 September 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 speedy delete under WP:CSD#G7. — ξxplicit 01:35, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No useful purpose and probably duplicates and existing template, which I am still searching for JMHamo (talk) 09:27, 27 September 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 speedy delete under WP:CSD#G7. — ξxplicit 01:35, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hard coded text, no useful purpose JMHamo (talk) 09:22, 27 September 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 (also per author request). MER-C 09:28, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Completely pointless template Joseph2302 09:02, 27 September 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 (also per author request). MER-C 09:33, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Completely pointless template Joseph2302 09:02, 27 September 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 (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 01:03, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again, there's only one place this article is or could be transcluded. Not an aid to navigation. Raymie (tc) 07:04, 27 September 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 (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 01:03, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another Mexican TV template with no transclusions because all the stations in town are repeaters of national networks. Raymie (tc) 07:01, 27 September 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).