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 relist (procedurally) in the MfD space. Primefac (talk) 04:06, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:User who experienced domestic violence as a husband (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Limited usage (one editor), not likely to be widely adopted or useful for organizing efforts to edit Wikipedia. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:58, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unhelpful. If one user wants to make a political statement they can manage without a user box in template space. Johnuniq (talk) 03:31, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Since this is a userbox, it should have been listed at WP:MFD. At the very least, it could be moved into the userspace of the user who created and is using it. clpo13_(talk) 07:53, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural keep - should have been listed at MfD, but I would cast a delete !vote there. --Regards, James(^talk/_contribs) 20:49, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural close - Userboxes should be at MFD. --TL22 (talk) 00:24, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment To preclude further "not here, take it to MfD and close in the meantime" comments, I would say to relist this entire discussion at MfD and post a notice here directing potential participants to it (but don't close, relist as if it were being moved to the newest TfD log to reach a clearer consensus). Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 04:23, 18 December 2015 (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) sst✈^(discuss) 17:04, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Greek Hill Climb Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template full of redlinks, with only one existent article. Most events are likely non-notable, so there is little chance of this template becoming useful. QueenCake (talk) 18:56, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, this template can be recreated if/when more of these articles exist. Until then, it won't hurt anyone to not have it. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 19:10, 10 December 2015 (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) sst✈^(discuss) 15:16, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:A Head Full of Dreams track listing (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per previous consensus on these kind of templates. They are redundant. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 16:19, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not enough active links to justify a navbox. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 16:42, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as redundant to Template:Coldplay songs and per precedent from previous TFD's Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:26, 11 December 2015 (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) sst✈^(discuss) 15:27, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

This would be better suited to a category or a list. A navbox for a theme like this could potentially get way out of hand as there are surely more notable games not covered here. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 00:49, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is a category, not a navbox. We don't make navboxes for genres, because they are continuous and indiscriminate. Choosing examples over others is OR/UNDUE. Besides, I'm not sure how many of those are actually refereed to as "advergames" in reliable sources. We don't even have an article for it, so it smacks of NEO. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:07, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral. I suppose the above commentors are correct, due to the sprawl and provability of notability. I'm not sure though, because there are existing lists of the most notable of the notable, such as List of video games notable for negative reception where we defined fairly clear criteria on the Talk page. Maybe there could be an article such as "List of advergames" if there isn't, which defines the concept of an advergame, and the criteria for being the most notable of the notable. They probably need to have shaped culture, started a legacy, or have more than 5 RSes calling it an advergame. Feel free to elucidate. — Smuckola(talk) 17:21, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • We're not opposed to categories or lists of this type of thing (in fact, there's already Category:Advergames, and I added it to the seven or so entries in the navbox that didn't already have it regardless of individual notability). The problem is that a navbox is basically that same list or category being replicated wholesale on every page that includes it. In some cases, this is okay and even desirable, as a navbox is literally a "navigation box" - it's a virtual roadmap and you can use it to jump from one part of the overall topic to the next. But every map has to end somewhere, and for navboxes like these there's no end in sight - ever, so it multiplies server load far beyond necessity. That's why we have the rule, even if it's unspoken, that navboxes like these are inappropriate. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 19:09, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Hellknowz. Graham (talk) 01:31, 11 December 2015 (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).