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; deleted as G7 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:05, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map/testing (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Apparent failed test from 2016. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:35, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I made this while mucking around with some things that didn't work properly, and then it got forgotten. Unused since 2016. Delete! Deuar (talk) 12:03, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete per WP:G2. --Tom (LT) (talk) 20:56, 8 October 2020 (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) 13:59, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:River Plate (Uruguay) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template has no use. Almost all of its links redirect to the main page. 71.208.32.185 (talk) 21:46, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep only two point to the main page. It is useful and if it is deleted then there are hundreds of others that should as well. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 12:20, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: These are the links: Int. competitions (red link), History (redirect to club), Players (redirect to section), chairman (red link), manager (valid link), stadium (valid link), six winning seasons that don't have articles, and two completely different clubs. So the only real links are to the manager (don't see that on most club templates, prove me wrong) and the stadium. Even a modest English club like Plymouth Argyle has a more useful template than this. 2A00:23C5:E187:5F00:4967:1169:F64D:CB72 (talk) 20:08, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then improve it, don't nominate it for deletion. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 09:55, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BTW if your the nominator. Then you shouldn't be voting on your own nomination. You are asking others what they think about it, not yourself. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 09:56, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 14:05, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - does not adequately navigate between linked topics. GiantSnowman 14:07, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• delete, insufficient navigation for a navbox. Frietjes (talk) 14:39, 12 October 2020 (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) 14:06, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:ME-Announce (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Has not been used for some ten years now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:19, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:35, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 20:56, 8 October 2020 (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) 14:07, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Bluefield Blue Jays roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Burlington Royals roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Danville Braves roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Princeton Rays roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Pulaski Yankees roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Bristol Pirates roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Elizabethton Twins roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Greeneville Reds roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Johnson City Cardinals roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Kingsport Mets roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

These teams are now defunct. As they will not be playing again, there is no need to maintain rosters. The only page still using these templates is Appalachian League rosters, which is also no longer needed. NatureBoyMD (talk) 19:30, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Spanneraol (talk) 14:15, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was no consensus. Primefac (talk) 00:24, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Dot chart (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Module:Dot chart (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only used in the user sandbox of an editor who has only made one edit in the last 11 months. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:54, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• It seems like you can do some of that with ((Graph:Chart)), but this template appears a bit easier to use, and the result looks a lot cleaner. It's also well-documented. Is there any reason not to encourage its use? – Uanfala (talk) 14:21, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as useful, per my comment above. – Uanfala (talk) 21:56, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  If this were useful, it would have been used more than once in the two years it has existed (and been well-linked-to). * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:26, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  We're not a fruit market, there's no need to throw out all the unsold produce at the end of the day. This is a useful template, I'm struggling to see what could possibly be gained from deleting it, and I'd much rather see it promoted and used (we're definitely underusing all out graph templates). – Uanfala (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:01, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm going to weigh in and say that I don't think a dot chart is an accessible or good way to represent data on the encyclopaedia, and that's probably one reason it has no usages. So I don't particularly think its usage should be encouraged. At the same time, I'm not sure it's a good reason to delete, if there does become a scenario where a dot chart is a good way to represent information. And I note that we have no guideline explicitly saying dot charts are prohibited. So I'm ambivalent, leaning keep. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:45, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:47, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Spit cake (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This navbox only contains 5 items; it should be subsumed by Template:Cakes. BenKuykendall (talk) 04:12, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak OK with a merge outcome, but I'm very open to hearing reasons to "keep." Only bothering to speak up so this doesn't become one of those "no response/relist" entries. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 12:48, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I know not everything needs a navbox, but this one is not "fewer than a handful of links"--I don't know how many links you can hold in one hand, but five links is kind of a full hand, is it not? Drmies (talk) 16:36, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this navbox links relevant articles and helps with navigation. I think it should be kept in a single navbox. I do not believe super navboxes provide much navigational value --Tom (LT) (talk) 20:56, 8 October 2020 (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) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:49, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Campaignbox Airstrikes on Syria (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A vuguely defined topic Airstrikes on Syria, which tries to group together unrelated events of the Iran-Israel proxy conflict, Syrian Civil War, American-led intervention in the Syrian Civil War. We already have those articles included in related templates.GreyShark (dibra) 06:03, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. We do not usually categories military engagements by the type of weapons used, eg we don't have have Attacks in Italy in which swords were used nor Battles in Indonesia featuring artillery --Tom (LT) (talk) 20:56, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Tom (LT). Unique navbox concept that is not a good way to link articles. --RL0919 (talk) 05:40, 11 October 2020 (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).