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) 13:52, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's a recently created template that's only used on one highly visible page, I suggest it would only be needed if there was a need for mass consistency, and I doubt DC or PR will become states, only needs 2 characters to type "50" than 9 characters to type the template. ∼∼∼∼ Eric0928Talk 23:51, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Per nom. Utterly useless, as it's not something that changes regularly. - BilCat (talk) 10:42, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per TfD of Template:EUnum, which serves the same purpose.--Prisencolin (talk) 10:47, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, Template:EUnum is used on quite a bit of pages, and the number of EU members has changed 3 times since Wikipedia's foundation, whereas the number of U.S. states has stayed the same since 1959. The EU referendum should subtract one from that, so I can see a need for that template. ∼∼∼∼ Eric0928Talk 18:24, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The number of US states has been constant for a while now, but on average there has been a new state admitted to the union every four or so years, so a new one is due any time now. On the otherhand, the EU Commission has stated that a new member will likely not be added until 2018, if at all, and the UK will remain in the EU for at least two. Further, because the the number of states has remained constant for a while, in instances of "50 states" being used in articles outnumber the numbers of mentions of 28 member states.--Prisencolin (talk) 01:09, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This recently created (Aug. '16) is unnecessary, as the number of U.S. states doesn't change often enough to justify using the template. There have been 50 states for nearly 60 years and there will be 50 states for the foreseeable future. Drdpw (talk) 13:16, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Pointless. If the US adds a state, it's really not that hard to change the pages --^TheSpaceFace _{Let's Chat} 03:51, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is not particularly useful and the number of states doesn't change that often. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:25, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• delete, pointless. Frietjes (talk) 14:37, 19 December 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 December 21 (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 00:39, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Ak icon (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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 move to userspace Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:39, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:1961–62 Division I Independent ice hockey standings (men) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:1962–63 Division I Independent ice hockey standings (men) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:1963–64 Division I Independent ice hockey standings (men) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:1964–65 Division I Independent ice hockey standings (men) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:1965–66 Division I Independent ice hockey standings (men) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:1966–67 Division I Independent ice hockey standings (men) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:1967–68 Division I Independent ice hockey standings (men) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:1968–69 Division I Independent ice hockey standings (men) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:1969–70 Division I Independent ice hockey standings (men) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused templates. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 21:19, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• comment seems to be putting the cart before the horse; creating templates before the corresponding articles. I could quickly turn these into article stubs if that were useful (it seems like it would take even longer for these to have more than one use), or we could put them in PensRule11385's user space until there is time to create the articles. or, if PensRule11385 has no plans to create the articles, we should just delete the templates. Frietjes (talk) 14:36, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I made the templates ahead of time because it was easier to create them from the source material all in one go rather than make the article and refer to the various pages and documents one-by-one. Unless someone beats me to it I will eventually be making a page for every NCAA Division I season going back to 1947-48 (when the first tournament was played). I would prefer that they not be deleted but if someone wants to put them into a kind of limbo until they're used I can't really complain. PensRule11385 (talk) 16:34, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• move to userspace until the articles have been created and the templates have a place to be used. although, if they are going to be used in only one article, it would be better to put them in the article directly. Frietjes (talk) 16:10, 20 December 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 move to userspace Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:39, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:1958–59 Big Ten ice hockey standings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:1959–60 Big Ten ice hockey standings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:1960–61 Big Ten ice hockey standings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:1961–62 Big Ten ice hockey standings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:1962–63 Big Ten ice hockey standings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:1963–64 Big Ten ice hockey standings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:1964–65 Big Ten ice hockey standings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:1965–66 Big Ten ice hockey standings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:1966–67 Big Ten ice hockey standings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:1967–68 Big Ten ice hockey standings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:1968–69 Big Ten ice hockey standings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:1969–70 Big Ten ice hockey standings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused templates. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 21:14, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• comment seems to be putting the cart before the horse; creating templates before the corresponding articles. I could quickly turn these into article stubs if that were useful (it seems like it would take even longer for these to have more than one use), or we could put them in PensRule11385's user space until there is time to create the articles. or, if PensRule11385 has no plans to create the articles, we should just delete the templates. Frietjes (talk) 14:36, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I made the templates ahead of time because it was easier to create them from the source material all in one go rather than make the article and refer to the various pages and documents one-by-one. Unless someone beats me to it I will eventually be making a page for every NCAA Division I season going back to 1947-48 (when the first tournament was played). I would prefer that they not be deleted but if someone wants to put them into a kind of limbo until they're used I can't really complain. PensRule11385 (talk) 16:34, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• move to userspace until the articles have been created and the templates have a place to be used. although, if they are going to be used in only one article, it would be better to put them in the article directly. Frietjes (talk) 16:10, 20 December 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) 19:30, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:A-League interim map (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template. GXXF T • C 20:38, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Creator - Not that phased if it goes. I just utilised this while the Newcastle Jets' future was uncertain and they'd gone under a few seasons back. - J man708 (talk) 08:08, 13 December 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) 19:29, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Nobel laureates of India (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to ((Indian Nobel laureates)), which was created years ago. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 19:29, 11 December 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) 19:26, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Letters with caron sharp (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only used on deleted hoax page. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 16:22, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I agree it should be deleted as it is not used in any significant way. DRMcCreedy (talk) 18:05, 11 December 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) 19:20, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:2017 Copa Centroamericana – Group B standings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2017 Copa Centroamericana – Group A standings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2017 Copa Centroamericana – Final Stage Bracket (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Competition had a format change, there's no longer a Group A or B or a 'Final Stage'. I'm asking for the Group A standings template be to removed (i.e. the redirect), not the template it redirects to. TheBigJagielka (talk) 11:22, 11 December 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) 19:19, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:First recipients of the Knight's Cross (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template lists personnel of the German Wehrmacht of WWII, who happen to be first recipients of the award. As high-ranking commanders, all of these subjects are also included in the Template:GFMofWWII (template of field marshals), making the template under discussion redundant and not informative.

K.e.coffman (talk) 08:00, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:39, 13 December 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) 19:19, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Knight's Cross recipients of KG 53 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template contains one entry K.e.coffman (talk) 07:56, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:39, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Doesn't serve the purpose for navigation. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:29, 14 December 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) 19:19, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Knight's Cross recipients of the 1st FPD (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template contains one entry K.e.coffman (talk) 07:55, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:39, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Doesn't serve the purpose for navigation. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:29, 14 December 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) 19:19, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Knight's Cross recipients of SG 9 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template contains one entry K.e.coffman (talk) 07:53, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:39, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Doesn't serve the purpose for navigation. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:29, 14 December 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) 19:19, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Knight's Cross recipients of the 389th ID (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Insufficient navigation: only two entries K.e.coffman (talk) 07:08, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:39, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Doesn't serve the purpose for navigation. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:29, 14 December 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 per the concerns that this group is not notable in and of itself, and changes too frequently to be useful. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 13:50, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Current APEC Central Bank Governors (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Verging on WP:CRUFT. No indication that this group of bank governors has received attention as a group. See also [1]. Vanamonde (talk) 07:03, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This should not be deleted regarding the template APEC's central bank governors as it has a significant purpose and navigational purpose served by this template. Alongside Finance Ministers, the central bank governors represent APEC countries during APEC Summits similar to the G8 and G20. Central bank governors do have a role during APEC finance ministerial meetings Saiph121 (talk) 07:03, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There is evidence that Central bank governors had a role on APEC summits and are evident as a group in attendance in APEC ministerial meetings and are not a cruft and therefore legitimate as well highly significant. It is highly recommended that these template should be retained and lift off the nomination for deletion immediately. Saiph121 (talk) 04:05, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete New Zealand incumbents in Cabinet roles and Central Bank Governor change too often for the work needed to keep these templates up to date to be practical. The importance of having this information in a Wikipedia template is extremely low. EvidenceFairy (talk) 06:41, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Comment - Importance of this information in this Wikipedia template is absolutely and extremely necessary, important and highly important given to the note of those previous discussions. It is possible to keep these template up to date same as the template of G8 and G20. There is strictly and extremely no need to remove it. Saiph121 (talk) 12:02, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As I have previously said for the ASEAN templates below, this isn't needed and borders on cruft. The group of Central Bank Governors hasn't received significant coverage as a whole. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:28, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• delete, navbox cruft. we don't need a navbox for every position. Frietjes (talk) 14:31, 19 December 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 per the concerns that this group is not notable in and of itself, and changes too frequently to be useful. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 13:48, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Current APEC Foreign Ministers (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Verging on WP:CRUFT. There is no evidence that this particular subset of foreign ministers is in any way more closely linked than any other, and this international grouping is not one that has received significant attention in WP:RS. Vanamonde (talk) 07:00, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This should not be strictly deleted as there is a reason that foreign ministers have a purpose in every APEC summit particularly the ministerial meetings. Saiph121 (talk) 07:01, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Foreign ministers also attended APEC summits and are accompanied APEC heads of states. Mostly they represent heads of states (in absence depending on circumstances). It functions as same in the G8 and G20. Saiph121 (talk) 07:20, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There is evidence that Foreign ministers had a role on APEC summits and there are closely linked to other as evident in APEC ministerial meetings and are not a cruft and therefore highly significant and legitimate. It is highly recommended that these template should be retained and lift off the nomination for deletion immediately. Saiph121 (talk) 03:32, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - It is pointless that without the foreign ministers in APEC, there would be no effect on APEC's function as an economic organization that focuses not just on trade, monetary system but foreign relations as well; Furthermore, like what was mentioned in three previous comments, deleting or removing these template is absolutely pointless as it served its purpose, this is considered as completely accurate and therefore should absolutely be kept and retained. Saiph121 (talk) 00:10, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I am not in favour of templates such as these. Unless the foreign ministers of APEC have received coverage as a while, it doesn't serve a purpose. There are way too many of these templates already. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 00:58, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - It seems that you really don't get the point. The foreign ministers of APEC (member economies they represent) had a coverage (see the example of the foreign ministerial meeting of APEC, [2]) and yet based on the 4 discussions, they have a purpose. There a valid reason these should be retained and remind that these template is not a cruft and are legitimate. Saiph121 (talk) 1:21, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Struck duplicate keep--Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:31, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Question and Comment - What is the point if the APEC ministerial meetings don't have a coverage on the foreign ministers of APEC at all? Strictly speaking, (see the web page of APEC meeting papers section - Annual ministerial meetings and then browse the recent ministerial meetings and previous ministerial meetings, [3]) the foreign ministers of APEC do group together and participate in these ministerial meetings and it is there they will make joint declaration of several of the current policies. On the five discussions being made, it's a proof that the foreign ministers of APEC had these coverage and a reason why should not be removed and retained instead. Saiph121 (talk) 1:58, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
• Delete New Zealand incumbents in Cabinet roles and Central Bank Governor change too often for the work needed to keep these templates up to date to be practical. The importance of having this information in a Wikipedia template is extremely low. EvidenceFairy (talk) 06:41, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Comment - Importance of this information in this Wikipedia template is absolutely and extremely necessary, important and highly important given to the note of those previous discussions. It is possible to keep these template up to date same as the template of G8 and G20. There is strictly and extremely no need to remove it. Saiph121 (talk) 12:02, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Struck duplicate keep. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:31, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, navbox cruft. we don't need a navbox for every position. Frietjes (talk) 14:30, 19 December 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 per the concerns that this group is not notable in and of itself, and changes too frequently to be useful. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 13:50, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:ASEAN Central Bank Governors (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is...what should I call it...ASEAN cruft? ASEAN as a group is well known, but the central bank governors of ASEAN countries isn't a significant topic itself. I don't see the navigational purpose served by this template. We don't have templates such as "Current central bank governors of NATO/SAARC/African Union" etc. Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:39, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I just looked and realised G20 seems to have a bunch of similar templates. It is possible that the editor looked that those and eplicated it for ASEAN. We might need to decide whether we need templates such as these. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:51, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This should not be deleted regarding the template ASEAN's central bank governors as it has a significant purpose and navigational purpose served by this template. Alongside Finance Ministers, the central bank governors represent ASEAN countries during ASEAN Summits similar to the G8 and G20. Saiph121 (talk) 06:58, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete essentially cruft, of the sort that frequently crops up in South Asian articles. No evidence that this group of central bankers have received any treatment in reliable sources as a group, nor that they have closer connections to each other than to any other central bank governors. I have run into this issue with this editor before. Vanamonde (talk) 06:57, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There is evidence that Central bank governors had a role alongside finance ministers during ASEAN ministerial meetings and that is so these template are highly significant and important as well they are not a cruft. It should be highly suggested to retain these templates as well lift off the nomination for deletion immediately. Saiph121 (talk) 03:17, 11 December 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.210.72.169 (talk) [reply]
• delete, navbox cruft. we don't need a navbox for every position. Frietjes (talk) 14:30, 19 December 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) 19:18, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Knight's Cross recipients of the 6th SS MD (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Insufficient navigation -- only two entries. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:26, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Doesn't serve the purpose for navigation. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:43, 11 December 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 as per WP:T2. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 19:33, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

This encourages sockpuppetry. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 03:09, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• What the...? Delete. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:27, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I was like, wait what? Created on 13 May 2006 by ForestH2 who was blocked for socking. How did template survive 10 years? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:42, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete tempted to IAR delete this myself as disruptive material, only holding off because it isn't transcluded much. Vanamonde (talk) 07:01, 11 December 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).