The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 23:35, 30 May 2022 (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).
Template:WikiProject Philosophy/Nav/template
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 06:28, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 18:57, 23 May 2022 (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(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 06:29, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unused very old page views for Philosophy pages. If this is wanted, it should be subst somewhere at Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy and then deleted. If it isn't wanted, then just delete. Gonnym (talk) 15:03, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 18:57, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The fact that is has become unused and no one has commented here indicates it is not wanted. * Pppery *it has begun... 00:32, 25 May 2022 (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(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 06:29, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unused very old page views for pharmacology pages. If this is wanted, it should be subst somewhere at Wikipedia:WikiProject Pharmacology and then deleted. If it isn't wanted, then just delete. Gonnym (talk) 15:05, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 18:57, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The fact that is has become unused and no one has commented here indicates it is not wanted. * Pppery *it has begun... 00:32, 25 May 2022 (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(s) or module(s) 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 merge to Template:Infobox games. For the record, transclusion count does not often matter when considering the potential deletion or merging of templates. Those in favour of deletion have given reasonable arguments why this template should be replaced by ((infobox games)), with no significant opposition.
While it should not need to be stated, this template will be replaced by ((infobox games)) and not simply deleted outright, so the only user-side changes to the article should be layout and formatting. Primefac (talk) 10:02, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Used over at 48 articles for a specific event and doesn't fork the Olympic games infobox. Two different international games infoboxes. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:56, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Used over at 48 articles" [SIC] is not a reason to keep a redundant template. The template creator's edit summary when creating the template was "create template based off template:infobox olympic games " - in other words, a fork. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:38, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The 48 articles references it's specific use. 48 article about the Pan American Games exist. "Only 19 transclusions", as you stated from that original discussion. How could it be redundant now given the expansion of the number of Pan American Games articles? And if it's a fork of the Olympic games infobox, then why not merge both into the Infobox games template instead of deleting it? --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:26, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"How could it be redundant now given the expansion of the number of Pan American Games articles?" Because 48 is still a very low number; because usage stats are not in any case a measure of redundancy or otherwise, and because many of those instances were swapping one infobox for another (see the example I gave, above), very similar, infobox. What do you think should be merged from this template into another (and why was that not simply added there in the first place)? As two merging to other templates, neither of which are part of this nomination, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS applies. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:01, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Both of the above keep arguments are either irrelevant or mere unsupported assertions. * Pppery *it has begun... 03:19, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 01:22, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This template offers no distinct functionality beyond Template:Infobox games. The parameter (({cauldron))} is a synonym for (({torch lighter))}. Daask (talk) 13:27, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the "Pan American Games flag" and "venues" to the template, which means there is a distinct functionality for this template. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:06, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 18:56, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This template is used in over 48 articles and there is no need to delete it. The "Pan American Games flag" and "venues" is only used for these games and on this template. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:06, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
delete, or refactor as a front-end for ((Infobox games)) and reconsider after the refactoring. Frietjes (talk) 19:17, 30 May 2022 (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(s) or module(s) 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).
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: This is transcluded on more pages than are listed in the template, so I invite rationales that consider that aspect. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 18:53, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see a problem with this one, WP:NENAN is an essay written by the nominator and seems to be personal opinion. The articles linked here aren't overflowing with navboxes and this does aid navigation. NemesisAT (talk) 11:21, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
keep, connects a sufficient number of articles. Frietjes (talk) 19:16, 30 May 2022 (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).
Template:Marsaxlokk F.C.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 23:37, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Two links to articles about where the team plays. Another is subject of an Afd. Two categories and one link to a section of the main article. Fails navigation. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:20, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
delete useless for navigation. Pelmeen10 (talk) 04:17, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 19:08, 24 May 2022 (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).
Template:Mosta F.C.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 23:38, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Two links to articles. Two links to categories. Two red links. Fails navigation. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:03, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
delete useless for navigation. Pelmeen10 (talk) 04:17, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 19:08, 24 May 2022 (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).
Template:Coord/dec2dms
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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 transclusions. Same rationale as this May 16 discussion. I just missed this one when I was making that list. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:41, 23 May 2022 (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).
Template:Alireza Najafzadeh
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 13:37, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Only used once, on the page of the director that is now on AfD The Bannertalk 09:22, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only one link to a film he's made and three TV shows he ran. Fails NENAN in that regard. Everything else on there is unnecessary. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:28, 23 May 2022 (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).