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) 23:50, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Riyas Ayiroor (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not a template. MT Train^Talk 16:26, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a Non notable WP:BIO fails WP:GNG. Author possible wanted to make an article and ended up making a Template. --DBigXray 16:45, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• delete, or move to article-space and then delete. Frietjes (talk) 20:18, 15 June 2018 (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) 00:06, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Hindu politics (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The set of links included herein is completely incoherent. I've just userfied the main article for the same reason; there's no substantive sources discussing "Hindu politics". A navbox could reasonably be created for subsets of these topics, but not the topic as a whole, and without a usable framing article, this should be deleted. Vanamonde (talk) 08:06, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a pure WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. The laughable addition of Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Bipin Chandra Pal only proves the point of WP:OR, To be honest, I was disappointed that Vivekananda was spared, may be adding him would have looked far too obvious for this template be trashed. There is no source, other then some recent attempts to hijack Indian/Hindu history by the Right wing Fringe theorists of Indian media, so even if you spend hours finding sources, the only non RS sources you will get will be from WP:FRINGE. It is not an uncommon sight in India to see misappropriation of Swamy Vivekananda in Posters of Rashtriya Swayam Sevak Sangh for electoral gains e.g. [1][2]. The template appears to be a similar excercise. This template is being slapped on articles like Deendayal Upadhyaya who are RSS leaders and have everything to do with RSS politics and nothing to do with Hinduism. A week back, I had initiated a disussion for a rename to a nearest suitable name but there is no consensus for a target name for this WP:OR and instead a "weak consensus" seems to emerge for deleting it. --DBigXray 08:29, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep or Rename to Hindutva Politics. This is a useful navigation box and is completely encyclopedic. Should not be deleted hastily.Rabbabodrool (talk) 02:57, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There is no coherent idea of "Hindu politics" in the literature. The template represents WP:SYNTHESIS. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:11, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Template:Hindu Nationalism already exists, and could be converted to a sidebar template if necessary. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:17, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There is no merit in keeping this template. By the look of it, it seems anyone who was a politician and a Hindu has been clubbed together in this template. Crawford88 (talk) 08:44, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I support your observation, its more like CherryPicking of politicians belonging to Hindu religion.--DBigXray 09:29, 18 June 2018 (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) 23:49, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:FC Bihor Oradea squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The club was dissolved more than 2 years ago, on 12 January 2016, so no need for a squad template. I propose to be deleted. Rhinen (talk) 19:44, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhkohh (talk) 23:36, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Hhkohh (talk) 23:36, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. S.A. Julio (talk) 04:45, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - a defunct club does not need a template for a 'current' squad, as there isn't one... GiantSnowman 08:25, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment How is being defunct a reason for delete ? With that logic anything related to defunct or dead things will be deleted. None of the rationales suggested above justify any deletion. A defunt team's template can still be used in appropritate article related to the appropriate team/ tournament etc. All the above areguements are WP:PILEON without having any substance. The same holds true for the 4-5 related Nonminations below. --DBigXray 09:26, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, and Comment in response to DBigXray - in short, the club no longer exists, and therefore has no players. Since there are no players, there is no need for a squad template. Also, because the clubs have no players, these templates should theoretically not be used anywhere in mainspace, and if they are they would be there incorrectly and need removed. Hope this helps. 21.colinthompson (talk) 02:20, 19 June 2018 (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) 23:49, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:FC Olimpia Satu Mare squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The club was excluded from Liga II and currently is inactive, probably will be enrolled in Liga IV, a fully amateur league, so I proposed it for deletion. Rhinen (talk) 19:45, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhkohh (talk) 23:36, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Hhkohh (talk) 23:36, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. S.A. Julio (talk) 04:45, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not needed. GiantSnowman 08:25, 14 June 2018 (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) 23:49, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:ACF Gloria 1922 Bistrița squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The club was dissolved and refounded at amateur level. Currently is playing in the Liga IV, so no need for a squad template. I propose it for deletion. Rhinen (talk) 19:46, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhkohh (talk) 23:36, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Hhkohh (talk) 23:36, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. S.A. Julio (talk) 04:45, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not needed. GiantSnowman 08:25, 14 June 2018 (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) 23:49, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:FC Progresul București squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The club is currently inactive at senior level. No need for the template anymore, I propose it also for deletion. Rhinen (talk) 19:48, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhkohh (talk) 23:36, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Hhkohh (talk) 23:36, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. S.A. Julio (talk) 04:46, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not needed. GiantSnowman 08:26, 14 June 2018 (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) 23:49, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:FC Sportul Studențesc București squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The club withdrew even from Liga IV, which is an amateur level and it's status is currently uncertain, probably dissolved or Liga V, which is also amateur. Propose for deletion. Rhinen (talk) 19:49, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhkohh (talk) 23:36, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Hhkohh (talk) 23:36, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. S.A. Julio (talk) 04:46, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - a defunct club does not need a template for a 'current' squad, as there isn't one... GiantSnowman 08:26, 14 June 2018 (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) 23:49, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:ASA Târgu Mureș squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The club is bankrupt and excluded from any competitions. Propose the template for deletion, no need anymore. Rhinen (talk) 19:50, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhkohh (talk) 23:36, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Hhkohh (talk) 23:36, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. S.A. Julio (talk) 04:46, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - a defunct club does not need a template for a 'current' squad, as there isn't one... GiantSnowman 08:26, 14 June 2018 (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).