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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:08, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:List of Kendriya Vidyalayas (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Makes no sense to have this template when all links take you to various sections of a single page; List of Kendriya Vidyalayas. Proposing deletion. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:16, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, just make sure there is a link to the list article in the see also section of each page listed in List of Kendriya Vidyalayas. Frietjes (talk) 15:22, 4 August 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 to delete. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:23, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:2012 Cascadia Cup (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unnecessary template Joeykai (talk) 04:10, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It's used in three articles. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:31, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• keep, seems no worse than the others of this type. Frietjes (talk) 15:23, 4 August 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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:26, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Texas Tech Red Raiders women's soccer coach navbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not enough links to provide useful navigation. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 03:48, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• According to what policy? Hmlarson (talk) 21:46, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• See WP:EXISTING. There is plenty of TfD precedent that four links is a minimum for a useful navbox. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 05:45, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for answering the question. Maybe next time you'll include it in your rationale. Hmlarson (talk) 00:11, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:EXISTING is an essay; it explains precedent, but it isn't a policy/guideline, so I generally don't link to it in a rationale. This one as everything to do with common sense. Navigational boxes are for navigating, so a box that fails to navigate shouldn't be used in articles, obviously. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 21:49, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• So, if I create articles to get rid of, at least, 2 red links, there would be no need to delete this template. --Wordbuilder (talk) 17:34, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• If you created the articles (and they weren't immediately nominated for deletion or slapped with a notability tag, of course), I'd withdraw my nomination, yes. This isn't useful as-is, and it shouldn't remain in articles while it isn't useful for navigation. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:26, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm busy now, but I've saved the navbox to my sandbox. If it gets deleted but I later create sustainable articles, I can bring it back. --Wordbuilder (talk) 00:14, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Userfy for now until the articles are established so it can be restored once useful —PC-XT+ 18:29, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• delete, does not connect a sufficient number of articles. Frietjes (talk) 13:52, 3 August 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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:27, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:VCU Rams men's soccer coach navbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not enough links to provide useful navigation. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 03:53, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (or userfy) as premature until most of the articles are established —PC-XT+ 22:23, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep for eventual article creation. As per all mens soccer coach navboxes Quidster4040 (talk) 21:40, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• delete, does not connect a sufficient number of articles. Frietjes (talk) 13:47, 3 August 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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:30, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Wake Forest Demon Deacons men's soccer coach navbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not enough links to provide useful navigation. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 03:53, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Meh, I'm kind of on the fence because it's almost good enough... if the one red link is notable, I'll say weak keep; if not, I'll say weak delete —PC-XT+ 19:40, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @PC-XT: It's hard to say. On one hand, he was inducted into the North Carolina Sports Hall of Fame. On the other hand, it was mostly for his contributions in high school sports, which is what he appears to have exclusively coached since leaving Wake Forest. At the very least, we can probably say that no-one is going to rush to write an article on a high school sports coach. See here for the relevant article so you can make your own judgement. It's probably on the fence of notability. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:04, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, in that case, I'll strike my weak keep !vote, because I don't think we want it kept like this long-term, but if someone did establish the article, I would support restoration of this template. Thanks for the reply and link. —PC-XT+ 02:42, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• keep, connects a sufficient number of articles (and here is the HOF article for Kennedy). Frietjes (talk) 13:47, 3 August 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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:31, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:St. Bonaventure Bonnies men's soccer coach navbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not enough links to provide useful navigation. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 03:01, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete (or userfy) as premature until another article is established; probably the easiest one of these to save given only one of several choices is needed —PC-XT+ 21:27, 25 July 2016 (UTC) 21:29, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• keep, connects a sufficient number of articles. Frietjes (talk) 13:52, 3 August 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 August 13. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:57, 13 August 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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:47, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Early Aviators (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

External link template created in 2007. Still only three transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:43, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep stable website with over 400 biographies of early aviators. There are over 50 links in articles to the website that can be transferred to the standardized template. Every link at Early Birds of Aviation that is blue can get the template and then Wikidata can read in the data. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:47, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now to help standardize and track external links —PC-XT+ 01:09, 28 July 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, and feel free to rename it. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:32, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Daat enc (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

External link template, created in 2008. Only six transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:31, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I'm the creator. The corresponding template in the Hebrew Wikipedia has over 500 transclusions. It helps to link to the daat.co.il website, which is a rich library of sources about Judaism. The English Wikipedia has over 200 links to that website, which should be converted to the template. (It would be nice to get Citoid support, too.) --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 18:50, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now to help standardize and track external links and references —PC-XT+ 01:11, 28 July 2016 (UTC) 02:48, 28 July 2016 (UTC) Note that I haven't tried converting the above links to this template. The actual template url doesn't seem to be used in these links, though it may be an old style of the same thing —PC-XT+ 02:54, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• rename ((cite daat enc)) since it's a wrapper for a citation template. Frietjes (talk) 12:55, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. (I'm ok renaming per the previous comment.) Important source. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:43, 8 August 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. Please feel free to renominate if the situation hasn't changed in a few weeks. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:00, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused user test. If still needed, userfy. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:24, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It serves as an example of something that can be done (even if not currently used), and I anticipate using it in future discussions. Userfying would require changing a bunch of links, and make it more tedious to use. There does not appear to be any harm in retaining it. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:32, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I agree with JJ. It was only created a few months back and though there is not consensus for its deployment (which hopefully would result in a change to Module:Citation/CS1) it seems a bit early to recommend deletion (there are plenty of stubs in article space that are considerably much older). In terms of whether to userfy or not, I too lean towards leaving it as it presents no harm (if there were something akin to ((stub)) or ((expert needed)) for templates I would recommend such). 50.53.1.33 (talk) 11:06, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What, precisely, is unclear about Keep and Keep? I think Andy's listing of this was just routine question of something that is currently on-hold; there has been no indication of any particular reason for deleting this. A "more thorough discussion" is a pointless waste of time and cpu cycles. And disk space. as now we have a discussion to archive. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:48, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One keep is from the author and the other is from an unregistered IP. So, if you are counting, that would be 2 keeps to 1 delete. Not what I would call consensus. I see no problem with letting the discussion run for another week. If you find it a waste of time, you don't need to participate further in the discussion. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:26, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• move to userspace, no transclusions in article space and no further development since 18 May 2016. Frietjes (talk) 12:52, 6 August 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).