Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 May 13

May 13

edit
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. ~ RobTalk 14:35, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template with nothing but red links. It is extremely doubtful that articles for individual weight classes for this event will be created Peter Rehse (talk) 12:50, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unless someone steps up and creates pages for each individual event, I agree. JoshMartini007 (talk) 15:07, 13 May 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 keep (mostly procedural). It's difficult to figure out what's the proposed outcome of this discussion. It's clear that neither should be deleted at this time based on the discussion linked below. If someone wants to propose merging, please do so in another TfD with a clear explanation of what outcome you're seeking and why. ~ RobTalk 14:33, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused (just once) template. Not useful. damiens.rf 07:35, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator seems to have been unaware of the discussion at Template talk:Religion primary. Per that discussion, I propose to keep this template, and to redirect {{Religion primary}} to it. Technically, I think the nomination should be changed, and Religion primary tagged with a Tfd or Tfm template. Debresser (talk) 15:28, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as participant in that earlier discussion. I just now added a needed /doc that was missing. There are thousands of articles that should have these templates applied, especially among the many start-class biographical articles on "saints" "swamis" etc. LeadSongDog come howl! 16:54, 13 May 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 as unopposed. WP:REFUND applies. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 14:27, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FailsWP:NAVBOX criterion 4. There's no article on the template's subject. Sixth of March 06:03, 13 May 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 as unopposed. WP:REFUND applies. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 14:25, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NAVBOX criterion 4. There's no article on the template's subject. Sixth of March 04:36, 13 May 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 as unopposed. WP:REFUND applies. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 14:23, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No useful navigation; navigates only two articles, the other one is a redirect. Also, there's no article on the template's subject. Sixth of March 04:08, 13 May 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).