Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 January 23

January 23

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 Relisted on 2017 January 31 Primefac (talk) 00:39, 31 January 2017 (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) 21:49, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Better suited by a category. Also see past Valdosta precedent, since confirmed here, here, here, and here, here, and here. Imzadi 1979  21:59, 23 January 2017 (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) 18:37, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per the deletions that occurred per the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Athletics at the 2015 ASEAN School Games, all of the links within this template are red links now. North America1000 20:22, 23 January 2017 (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. Primefac (talk) 00:35, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For WP:EXISTING. 27 redlinks to 5 blue... Pointless template. Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:45, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Likely to get even redder if allowed to persist. The vast majority of the items here have zero chance of ever being valid articles. This is a subject that deserves an article two but not a whole walled garden of articles with templates gluing the mess together. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:27, 25 January 2017 (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. Primefac (talk) 00:33, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template is not used and will never be updated as the team is defunct two years ago. Babymissfortune 14:41, 23 January 2017 (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; deleted as G7 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 06:08, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template has one remaining transclusion. However, all individual sports articles that this navigation template previously served were deleted at Article for Deletion today. Delete as a deprecated navigation template. Safiel (talk) 03:17, 23 January 2017 (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).

State Sukma Games alias XYZ

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; deleted as G7 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 09:08, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary template. The individual articles will not be created (as they are deemed not notable). Hence there is no need for this template. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:46, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating the following for the same reasons:

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. Discussion about potentially converting the sidebar into a navbox is a topic for that template's talk page. Primefac (talk) 00:37, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a point for this tiny navbox, which is duplicated with {{Protests against Trump sidebar}}. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 02:28, 23 January 2017 (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 2017 January 31 Primefac (talk) 00:32, 31 January 2017 (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).