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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was keep Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:30, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:US Aviation aircraft (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Fails WP:NENAN with just four relevant blue links. The Banner talk 23:19, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: WP:NENAN is just an essay, not a policy and a controversial essay that is not well accepted on Wikipedia too. The template is useful to readers and helps organize the subject. The use of navigation templates like this to organize manufacturer's aircraft types is a consensus standard across many thousands of WikiProject Aircraft articles. A discussion to gain a new consensus is underway at WikiProject Aircraft and continued nominations of aircraft manufacturer templates for deletion should be delayed until that discussion is complete. Rather than dealing with the piecemeal nomination of thousands of aircraft nav boxes please participate there to reach a consensus as to the best course of action. - NiD.29 (talk) 23:55, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Notification of the existence of this TfD has been made at WikiProject Aviation and WikiProject Aircraft, within whose scope this template falls. - Ahunt (talk) 15:10, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: This is a bad-faith nomination against a new consensus found here that all WikiProject Aircraft manufacturer nav boxes are useful and should be retained, regardless of the number of blue links presently in the template. This consensus in no way affects TfDs of other templates outside the purview of WikiProject Aircraft. Both here and here the nominator states that he will not accept any consensus about WikiProject Aircraft manufacturer nav boxes and will continue to nominate them for deletion against consensus. Here he indicates that his motivation for doing this is one of revenge. - Ahunt (talk) 15:21, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mr. Hunt, you are waging a kind of personal war without listening to other arguments. I have told you by now quite a few that a consensus reach amongst peers on a tiny corner of the vast Wikipedia will have no effect on TfD. Instead, you start to act ruder and ruder with more and more false accusations but no arguments why WP:NENAN should not be used. Act politely please. The Banner talk 15:28, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Poorly accepted essays do not prevail over consensus on Wikipedia. The current consensus on WikiProject Aircraft manufacturer nav boxes, in which outside editors from TfD participated (including you), are a perfectly valid means of arriving at how to deal with nominations of templates for deletion. Just because your position was not supported by anyone else in that discussion is no reason to go on a tear of nominating more templates against consensus. There is no requirement here that all templates be treated equally across Wikipedia and, as many different editors argued in the consensus debate, there are good reasons why WikiProject Aircraft manufacturer nav boxes should be retained, regardless of what some essay says. - Ahunt (talk) 15:44, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There is an ongoing discussion at and this nomination is an open attempt at blackmail by one of the disputants, see this diff. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:58, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: You can note that this template has five blue links including the titular article, so I don't know why it was even nominated in the first place. - Ahunt (talk) 16:09, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He is going by WP:NENAN, which doesn't include the title, but assumes it is blue. Including the title, the threshold would be 6 linked articles. I think 5 total articles is enough for many navboxes. I often like to compare it with the transclusions to find the number of articles in both that list and the navbox to use as the threshold, which may or may not include the title. —PC-XT+ 06:36, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep These navboxes perform a useful function: the rationale that this is 'tidying up Wikipedia' is feeble in the extreme: no explanation of how deleting these navboxes will actually benefit Wikipedia has been advanced. Essentially, this is just a one-editor jihad based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT and an essay, not a policy.TheLongTone (talk) 17:55, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, so you have no real arguments that you have to use personal attacks? The Banner talk 14:52, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No arguments and a personal attack? You jest.TheLongTone (talk) 15:11, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep with four relevant links, and a blue title. I think it is enough to qualify as a navbox. —PC-XT+ 06:25, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep part of a standard navigation feature on aircraft articles that helps the user easily navigate related subjects and replaced a more cumbersome use of the see also area, if the nominator doesnt like the red links they are welcome to help create the required article or at least ask for help. MilborneOne (talk) 14:24, 20 July 2014 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was keep Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:30, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ulrich Hütter and Wolfgang Hütter aircraft (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Fails WP:NENAN with just four relevant blue links for a company that is not notable (= deemed not notable as there is no article) The Banner talk 23:18, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: WP:NENAN is just an essay, not a policy and a controversial essay that is not well accepted on Wikipedia too. The template is useful to readers and helps organize the subject. The use of navigation templates like this to organize manufacturer's aircraft types is a consensus standard across many thousands of WikiProject Aircraft articles. A discussion to gain a new consensus is underway at WikiProject Aircraft and continued nominations of aircraft manufacturer templates for deletion should be delayed until that discussion is complete. Rather than dealing with the piecemeal nomination of thousands of aircraft nav boxes please participate there to reach a consensus as to the best course of action. - NiD.29 (talk) 23:54, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Notification of the existence of this TfD has been made at WikiProject Aviation and WikiProject Aircraft, within whose scope this template falls. - Ahunt (talk) 15:10, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: This is a bad-faith nomination against a new consensus found here that all WikiProject Aircraft manufacturer nav boxes are useful and should be retained, regardless of the number of blue links presently in the template. This consensus in no way affects TfDs of other templates outside the purview of WikiProject Aircraft. Both here and here the nominator states that he will not accept any consensus about WikiProject Aircraft manufacturer nav boxes and will continue to nominate them for deletion against consensus. Here he indicates that his motivation for doing this is one of revenge. - Ahunt (talk) 15:21, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There is an ongoing discussion and this nomination is an open attempt at blackmail by one of the disputants, see this diff. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:58, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep These navboxes perform a useful function: the rationale that this is 'tidying up Wikipedia' is feeble in the extreme: no explanation of how deleting these navboxes will actually benefit Wikipedia has been advanced. Essentially, this is just a one-editor jihad based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT and an essay, not a policy.TheLongTone (talk) 17:55, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now, with support for renomination if the title remains redlinked. —PC-XT+ 06:40, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep part of a standard navigation feature on aircraft articles that helps the user easily navigate related subjects and replaced a more cumbersome use of the see also area, if the nominator doesnt like the red links they are welcome to help create the required article or at least ask for help. MilborneOne (talk) 14:25, 20 July 2014 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was keep Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:27, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:UL-Jih aircraft (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Fails WP:NENAN with just three relevant blue links for a company that is not notable (= deemed not notable as there is no article) The Banner talk 23:17, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: WP:NENAN is just an essay, not a policy and a controversial essay that is not well accepted on Wikipedia too. The template is useful to readers and helps organize the subject. The use of navigation templates like this to organize manufacturer's aircraft types is a consensus standard across many thousands of WikiProject Aircraft articles. A discussion to gain a new consensus is underway at WikiProject Aircraft and continued nominations of aircraft manufacturer templates for deletion should be delayed until that discussion is complete. Rather than dealing with the piecemeal nomination of thousands of aircraft nav boxes please participate there to reach a consensus as to the best course of action. - NiD.29 (talk) 23:55, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Notification of the existence of this TfD has been made at WikiProject Aviation and WikiProject Aircraft, within whose scope this template falls. - Ahunt (talk) 15:10, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: This is a bad-faith nomination against a new consensus found here that all WikiProject Aircraft manufacturer nav boxes are useful and should be retained, regardless of the number of blue links presently in the template. This consensus in no way affects TfDs of other templates outside the purview of WikiProject Aircraft. Both here and here the nominator states that he will not accept any consensus about WikiProject Aircraft manufacturer nav boxes and will continue to nominate them for deletion against consensus. Here he indicates that his motivation for doing this is one of revenge. - Ahunt (talk) 15:20, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There is an ongoing discussion and this nomination is an open attempt at blackmail by one of the disputants, see this diff. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:58, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep These navboxes perform a useful function: the rationale that this is 'tidying up Wikipedia' is feeble in the extreme: no explanation of how deleting these navboxes will actually benefit Wikipedia has been advanced. Essentially, this is just a one-editor jihad based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT and an essay, not a policy.TheLongTone (talk) 17:55, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now with support for renomination if the red links do not turn blue. —PC-XT+ 06:42, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep part of a standard navigation feature on aircraft articles that helps the user easily navigate related subjects and replaced a more cumbersome use of the see also area, if the nominator doesnt like the red links they are welcome to help create the required article or at least ask for help. MilborneOne (talk) 14:25, 20 July 2014 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:24, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Northwich Victoria F.C. squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No navigable links, which makes this template redundant. JMHamo (talk) 21:01, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 21:04, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - template serves no purpose whatsoever. GiantSnowman 12:00, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom —PC-XT+ 06:47, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not a navbox by definition. Fenix down (talk) 10:25, 22 July 2014 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was merge Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:14, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Current BRICS Leaders (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:BRIC summits (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Current BRICS Leaders with Template:BRIC summits.
Small template to exist independently. Should be merged with Template:BRIC summits. Also, when merged, both current and past leaders should be included. Past leaders don't become trivial for being historic. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 13:31, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support The leaders template hardly has any links.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:35, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom.-John123521 (Talk-Contib.) RA 04:15, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose this template is used on the leaders' articles. It would be inappropriate to have the summits template on the leaders' articles. And if were're going to navigate between former leaders, wouldn't a separate template be better? ((BRICS leaders)), to navigate between leaders. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:06, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I personally would oppose even the creation of such categorization. These people hold the position of leader for being in a certain post and not because of what they are. By default, the heads of the governments of these countries are leaders. That's why its kinda crowding to put such templates on biography articles of these leaders. Being head of the state defacto makes them head/leader of numerous stuff and template for all is a bad idea. But just so we know and have it recorded, it should be added in summit's template. And why should former leaders be separated? We don't put one name in Template:Current Nobel Prize in Literature and put others in Template:Nobel Prize in Literature. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:25, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying current and former should be separated, I'm saying leaders and summits should be separated. As this template is currently only used on biography articles, I don't see why it should merge into the summits template, as the biography articles should not be hosting a navbox for summits. The equivalent G8 template is called ((Current G8 Leaders)) and only appears in the leaders' biography articles, not the summit articles. Though perhaps a merge between ((Current G8 Leaders)) ; ((Current BRICS Leaders)) ; ((current G20 Leaders)) ; ((current OECD Leaders)) should occur, with four fields listing each grouping, and only appearing on the current leaders' bio articles (not former) as ((current leaders of leading national economic powers)) ; -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 04:42, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - totally unnecessary. Easily can be listified. Neutrality^talk 07:16, 20 July 2014 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was keep Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:11, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:V-STOL Aircraft (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Fails WP:NENAN with just three relevant links The Banner talk 11:21, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: WP:NENAN is just an essay, not a policy and a controversial essay that is not well accepted on Wikipedia too. The template is useful to readers and helps organize the subject. The use of navigation templates like this to organize manufacturer's aircraft types is a consensus standard across many thousands of WikiProject Aircraft articles. A discussion to gain a new consensus is underway at WikiProject Aircraft and continued nominations of aircraft manufacturer templates for deletion should be delayed until that discussion is complete. Rather than dealing with the piecemeal nomination of thousands of aircraft nav boxes please participate there to reach a consensus as to the best course of action. - Ahunt (talk) 14:23, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Notification of the existence of this TfD has been made at WikiProject Aviation and WikiProject Aircraft, within whose scope this template falls. - Ahunt (talk) 14:23, 16 July 2014 (UTC) [reply]

• Comment the name of this template is highly ambiguous. It is not about V/STOL aircraft. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:09, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• If this is kept, it should be renamed to match the main article V-STOL Aircraft Corporation, to be ((V-STOL Aircraft Corporation aircraft)) -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:11, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There is an ongoing discussion and this nomination is an open attempt at blackmail by one of the disputants, see this diff. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:58, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Possibly move, per IP, though it does include a hyphen instead of a slash —PC-XT+ 06:57, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep part of a standard navigation feature on aircraft articles that helps the user easily navigate related subjects and replaced a more cumbersome use of the see also area, if the nominator doesnt like the red links they are welcome to help create the required article or at least ask for help. MilborneOne (talk) 14:26, 20 July 2014 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was keep Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:11, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Velocity aircraft (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Fails WP:NENAN with just four relevant links The Banner talk 11:21, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: WP:NENAN is just an essay, not a policy and a controversial essay that is not well accepted on Wikipedia too. The template is useful to readers and helps organize the subject. The use of navigation templates like this to organize manufacturer's aircraft types is a consensus standard across many thousands of WikiProject Aircraft articles. A discussion to gain a new consensus is underway at WikiProject Aircraft and continued nominations of aircraft manufacturer templates for deletion should be delayed until that discussion is complete. Rather than dealing with the piecemeal nomination of thousands of aircraft nav boxes please participate there to reach a consensus as to the best course of action. - Ahunt (talk) 14:23, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - there are more than sufficient links to justify keeping the nav box.NiD.29 (talk) 23:53, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Notification of the existence of this TfD has been made at WikiProject Aviation and WikiProject Aircraft, within whose scope this template falls. - Ahunt (talk) 14:23, 16 July 2014 (UTC) [reply]

• Comment if this is kept, it should be renamed to match the main article Velocity, Inc. so ((Velocity Inc aircraft)) -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:13, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There is an ongoing discussion and this nomination is an open attempt at blackmail by one of the disputants, see this diff. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:58, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: You can note that this template has five blue links including the titular article, so I don't know why it was even nominated in the first place. - Ahunt (talk) 16:11, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep These navboxes perform a useful function: the rationale that this is 'tidying up Wikipedia' is feeble in the extreme: no explanation of how deleting these navboxes will actually benefit Wikipedia has been advanced. Essentially, this is just a one-editor jihad based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT and an essay, not a policy.TheLongTone (talk) 17:55, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Possibly move per IP —PC-XT+ 07:00, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep part of a standard navigation feature on aircraft articles that helps the user easily navigate related subjects and replaced a more cumbersome use of the see also area, if the nominator doesnt like the red links they are welcome to help create the required article or at least ask for help. MilborneOne (talk) 14:26, 20 July 2014 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was keep Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:11, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:VFW-Fokker aircraft (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Fails WP:NENAN with just four relevant links The Banner talk 11:20, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: WP:NENAN is just an essay, not a policy and a controversial essay that is not well accepted on Wikipedia too. The template is useful to readers and helps organize the subject. The use of navigation templates like this to organize manufacturer's aircraft types is a consensus standard across many thousands of WikiProject Aircraft articles. A discussion to gain a new consensus is underway at WikiProject Aircraft and continued nominations of aircraft manufacturer templates for deletion should be delayed until that discussion is complete. Rather than dealing with the piecemeal nomination of thousands of aircraft nav boxes please participate there to reach a consensus as to the best course of action. - Ahunt (talk) 14:23, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Notification of the existence of this TfD has been made at WikiProject Aviation and WikiProject Aircraft, within whose scope this template falls. - Ahunt (talk) 14:23, 16 July 2014 (UTC) [reply]

• Keep - per the nominators cited essay which suggests a minimum of five links excluding primary. As this article has six links (four aircraft plus the two manufacturers), whichever manufacturer article you accept as primary leaves 5 more links and passes threshold. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:18, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I count six distinct links and I have references to create an article on one more VFW aircraft. As the creator of this template should I not have been notified of this nomination for deletion? Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:13, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is the third part of the process of nomination "You generally should notify the creator of template and it is also considered polite to also notify the main contributors of the template that you are nominating the template" and "as well as any related WikiProjects (look on the template's talk page) that do not use Article alerts" (my emphasis) GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:52, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked him on his talk page why he is not properly notifying anyone about these deletions. I added all the notifications to the WikiProjects myself, which is not my job. It looks like an attempt at a stealth deletion to me. - Ahunt (talk) 22:16, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Even the most extreme position (for which no evidence has been provided that it was ever agreed on) for deleting the nav boxes fails to provide a reason for deleting this one - indeed the Company is notable, has an article and has enough aircraft links to justify it from a navigational standpoint.NiD.29 (talk) 23:47, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There is an ongoing discussion and this nomination is an open attempt at blackmail by one of the disputants, see this diff. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:58, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: You can note that this template has six blue links including two titular articles, so I don't know why it was even nominated in the first place. - Ahunt (talk) 16:12, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep These navboxes perform a useful function: the rationale that this is 'tidying up Wikipedia' is feeble in the extreme: no explanation of how deleting these navboxes will actually benefit Wikipedia has been advanced. Essentially, this is just a one-editor jihad based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT and an essay, not a policy.TheLongTone (talk) 17:55, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep due to the pending addition of a 5th relevant link. (Title links are not counted in WP:NENAN, though I like to !vote by appropriate transclusions on pages linked from the navbox.) —PC-XT+ 07:09, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep part of a standard navigation feature on aircraft articles that helps the user easily navigate related subjects and replaced a more cumbersome use of the see also area, if the nominator doesnt like the red links they are welcome to help create the required article or at least ask for help. MilborneOne (talk) 14:27, 20 July 2014 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:10, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Vidor aircraft (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Fails WP:NENAN with just two relevant links and no parent article The Banner talk 11:19, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: WP:NENAN is just an essay, not a policy and a controversial essay that is not well accepted on Wikipedia too. The template is useful to readers and helps organize the subject. The use of navigation templates like this to organize manufacturer's aircraft types is a consensus standard across many thousands of WikiProject Aircraft articles. A discussion to gain a new consensus is underway at WikiProject Aircraft and continued nominations of aircraft manufacturer templates for deletion should be delayed until that discussion is complete. Rather than dealing with the piecemeal nomination of thousands of aircraft nav boxes please participate there to reach a consensus as to the best course of action. - Ahunt (talk) 14:23, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Notification of the existence of this TfD has been made at WikiProject Aviation and WikiProject Aircraft, within whose scope this template falls. - Ahunt (talk) 14:23, 16 July 2014 (UTC) [reply]

• Keep. There is an ongoing discussion and this nomination is an open attempt at blackmail by one of the disputants, see this diff. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:58, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep These navboxes perform a useful function: the rationale that this is 'tidying up Wikipedia' is feeble in the extreme: no explanation of how deleting these navboxes will actually benefit Wikipedia has been advanced. Essentially, this is just a one-editor jihad based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT and an essay, not a policy.TheLongTone (talk) 17:55, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless the red links turn blue —PC-XT+ 07:11, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep part of a standard navigation feature on aircraft articles that helps the user easily navigate related subjects and replaced a more cumbersome use of the see also area, if the nominator doesnt like the red links they are welcome to help create the required article or at least ask for help. MilborneOne (talk) 14:27, 20 July 2014 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:28, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Viking Aircraft (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Fails WP:NENAN with just two links and no parent article The Banner talk 11:17, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: WP:NENAN is just an essay, not a policy and a controversial essay that is not well accepted on Wikipedia too. The template is useful to readers and helps organize the subject. The use of navigation templates like this to organize manufacturer's aircraft types is a consensus standard across many thousands of WikiProject Aircraft articles. A discussion to gain a new consensus is underway at WikiProject Aircraft and continued nominations of aircraft manufacturer templates for deletion should be delayed until that discussion is complete. Rather than dealing with the piecemeal nomination of thousands of aircraft nav boxes please participate there to reach a consensus as to the best course of action. - Ahunt (talk) 14:23, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - parent article needs to be written, that is all. The lack of an article doesn't make a subject non-notable.NiD.29 (talk) 23:51, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Notification of the existence of this TfD has been made at WikiProject Aviation and WikiProject Aircraft, within whose scope this template falls. - Ahunt (talk) 14:23, 16 July 2014 (UTC) [reply]

• Keep. There is an ongoing discussion and this nomination is an open attempt at blackmail by one of the disputants, see this diff. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:58, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep These navboxes perform a useful function: the rationale that this is 'tidying up Wikipedia' is feeble in the extreme: no explanation of how deleting these navboxes will actually benefit Wikipedia has been advanced. Essentially, this is just a one-editor jihad based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT and an essay, not a policy.TheLongTone (talk) 17:55, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless the title article is created —PC-XT+ 07:15, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep part of a standard navigation feature on aircraft articles that helps the user easily navigate related subjects and replaced a more cumbersome use of the see also area, if the nominator doesnt like the red links they are welcome to help create the required article or at least ask for help. MilborneOne (talk) 14:27, 20 July 2014 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was keep Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:26, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Volmer Jensen aircraft (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Fails WP:NENAN with just four relevant links for a non-notable company (= no article) The Banner talk 11:16, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: WP:NENAN is just an essay, not a policy and a controversial essay that is not well accepted on Wikipedia too. The template is useful to readers and helps organize the subject. The use of navigation templates like this to organize manufacturer's aircraft types is a consensus standard across many thousands of WikiProject Aircraft articles. A discussion to gain a new consensus is underway at WikiProject Aircraft and continued nominations of aircraft manufacturer templates for deletion should be delayed until that discussion is complete. Rather than dealing with the piecemeal nomination of thousands of aircraft nav boxes please participate there to reach a consensus as to the best course of action. - Ahunt (talk) 14:23, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: the company/designer is notable despite the lack of page, and has been written about in publications, and there are a number of missing links that need to be added. That no-one has gotten around to writing it yet doesn't make it non-notable.

Note: Notification of the existence of this TfD has been made at WikiProject Aviation and WikiProject Aircraft, within whose scope this template falls. - Ahunt (talk) 14:23, 16 July 2014 (UTC) [reply]

• Keep. There is an ongoing discussion and this nomination is an open attempt at blackmail by one of the disputants, see this diff. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:58, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep These navboxes perform a useful function: the rationale that this is 'tidying up Wikipedia' is feeble in the extreme: no explanation of how deleting these navboxes will actually benefit Wikipedia has been advanced. Essentially, this is just a one-editor jihad based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT and an essay, not a policy.TheLongTone (talk) 17:55, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep if the title article is created. —PC-XT+ 07:18, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep part of a standard navigation feature on aircraft articles that helps the user easily navigate related subjects and replaced a more cumbersome use of the see also area, if the nominator doesnt like the red links they are welcome to help create the required article or at least ask for help. MilborneOne (talk) 14:28, 20 July 2014 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:26, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Vortech aircraft (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Fails WP:NENAN with just three relevant blue links The Banner talk 11:14, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: WP:NENAN is just an essay, not a policy and a controversial essay that is not well accepted on Wikipedia too. The template is useful to readers and helps organize the subject. The use of navigation templates like this to organize manufacturer's aircraft types is a consensus standard across many thousands of WikiProject Aircraft articles. A discussion to gain a new consensus is underway at WikiProject Aircraft and continued nominations of aircraft manufacturer templates for deletion should be delayed until that discussion is complete. Rather than dealing with the piecemeal nomination of thousands of aircraft nav boxes please participate there to reach a consensus as to the best course of action. - Ahunt (talk) 14:23, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Notification of the existence of this TfD has been made at WikiProject Aviation and WikiProject Aircraft, within whose scope this template falls. - Ahunt (talk) 14:23, 16 July 2014 (UTC) [reply]

• Delete Not enough links. Vortech doesn't even have a article....William 15:02, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - notability is not determined by the existence of an article on the subject (which simply hasn't been written yet), but by publications about the subject, and this passes that test amply.NiD.29 (talk) 23:49, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There is an ongoing discussion and this nomination is an open attempt at blackmail by one of the disputants, see this diff. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:58, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep These navboxes perform a useful function: the rationale that this is 'tidying up Wikipedia' is feeble in the extreme: no explanation of how deleting these navboxes will actually benefit Wikipedia has been advanced. Essentially, this is just a one-editor jihad based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT and an essay, not a policy.TheLongTone (talk) 17:55, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• If this stays as-is, it should be deleted, but all the red links seem to be more or less notable, and the project is active, so I'm leaning towards keep for now. —PC-XT+ 07:23, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep part of a standard navigation feature on aircraft articles that helps the user easily navigate related subjects and replaced a more cumbersome use of the see also area, if the nominator doesnt like the red links they are welcome to help create the required article or at least ask for help. MilborneOne (talk) 14:28, 20 July 2014 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 06:25, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Vice-captain (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

per this TfD outcome... JMHamo (talk) 06:57, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 06:59, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per past consensus. GiantSnowman 09:19, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom WP:ICONDECORATION; also has nothing to do with junior Captains. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:15, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - prior deletion discussion outcome. Fenix down (talk) 10:24, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per prior discussion. – PeeJay 17:40, 24 July 2014 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.