The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:28, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Not useful for navigation since most African Wikipedias don't have their own article. For those who have one, there is Template:Wikipedias to link them. eh bien mon prince ( talk) 15:05, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:35, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Unused Infobox settlement wrapper. eh bien mon prince ( talk) 09:34, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:59, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Too few links. — Lfdder ( talk) 14:20, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:54, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
1-link navbox. — Lfdder ( talk) 14:20, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:52, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Too few links. — Lfdder ( talk) 14:20, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:51, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
This seems like a duplicate of {{ NOT}}, formerly {{ Unencyclopedic}}, which said "This article may contain content not appropriate for an encyclopedia". It was deleted for being overly vague and prone to drive-by tagging.
For a template that's been around for well over a year, it had only five transclusions:
The template's main problem is an utter lack of specificity. Every problem I found has another template already set out for it, and "nonnotable content" is about as vague as "content not appropriate for an encyclopedia". Five transclusions is a very low number, especially when all five were better suited to other templates or easily fixable without a template in the first place. If one section of an article is of dubious relevance to the rest of the article, then templates like {{ coatrack}} {{ example farm}}, or {{ relevance}} should be all it needs, not a vague underused template such as this. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 05:50, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:28, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Not useful for navigation since most African Wikipedias don't have their own article. For those who have one, there is Template:Wikipedias to link them. eh bien mon prince ( talk) 15:05, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:35, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Unused Infobox settlement wrapper. eh bien mon prince ( talk) 09:34, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:59, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Too few links. — Lfdder ( talk) 14:20, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:54, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
1-link navbox. — Lfdder ( talk) 14:20, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:52, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Too few links. — Lfdder ( talk) 14:20, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:51, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
This seems like a duplicate of {{ NOT}}, formerly {{ Unencyclopedic}}, which said "This article may contain content not appropriate for an encyclopedia". It was deleted for being overly vague and prone to drive-by tagging.
For a template that's been around for well over a year, it had only five transclusions:
The template's main problem is an utter lack of specificity. Every problem I found has another template already set out for it, and "nonnotable content" is about as vague as "content not appropriate for an encyclopedia". Five transclusions is a very low number, especially when all five were better suited to other templates or easily fixable without a template in the first place. If one section of an article is of dubious relevance to the rest of the article, then templates like {{ coatrack}} {{ example farm}}, or {{ relevance}} should be all it needs, not a vague underused template such as this. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 05:50, 6 October 2013 (UTC)