The result of the discussion was delete. Opabinia regalis ( talk) 23:34, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
WP:EXISTING -- The navbox is only used in the 2013 League season article, making it hard to navigate. The standard for this type of thing would be a standings template (e.g. Template:Standings Table Start), if there were season articles that existed, which there are not any. Quite frankly, the 2013 Summit League men's soccer season should be deleted as well. But that's another forum. ❄ Corkythe hornetfan ❄ 23:35, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. Opabinia regalis ( talk) 23:35, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. Opabinia regalis ( talk) 23:35, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Template created in 2005 as a test and appears to have no use at all subsequent to that point. Template appears to be orphaned, save for 2 or 3 user page transclusions. Safiel ( talk) 03:10, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. Opabinia regalis ( talk) 23:35, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
These templates denote a minor award that is not a defining biographical element for its recipients. These navboxes are therefore unneeded and clutter more pertinent navboxes in the footers of the bio articles on which they are transcluded. Jweiss11 ( talk) 01:31, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. Month-old, unopposed nomination. Opabinia regalis ( talk) 23:37, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Previous TfDs for this template: |
The family list is something for an infobox, the remaining three links can easily be put in a "See also" section, if not in the main text itself. Of those three, the link to Maqām Ibrāhīm redirects to tiny subsection in Petrosomatoglyph, leaving actually only two meaningful links. HyperGaruda ( talk) 09:24, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Although the following is a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument, I'd like to add that many similar templates were deleted during a previous AfD, this AfD about {Abu Bakr}, and this AfD about {Fatimah}. - HyperGaruda ( talk) 20:36, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was no consensus. Or more accurately, not enough information to judge. There's no links here to the prior relevant discussions mentioned, and having looked at the templates, I can't figure out why you'd want a single, often red wikilink in a template, although the practice apparently has a few defenders. No prejudice against a renomination that explains the context. Opabinia regalis ( talk) 23:42, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Unused, seems to have been created in error JMHamo ( talk) 13:40, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. The claim for keeping mainly lies in the assertion that this is a notable milestone in a player's career. Given that there is no article to corroborate that information, this remains fancruft in the eyes of many. Should an article to this effect be created, I see no reason why it could not be restored, but as of right now there is no compelling reason to keep it. (non-admin closure) Primefac ( talk) 04:27, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
WP:NOTSTATS and simply not notable. — Swastik Chakraborty (User talk) 07:03, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template.The 300-cap version already got deleted. Why would 100 caps be that special, apart from being a perceived likable number in the decimal system (nothing extraordinary about it when written in binary: 1100100)? I do not see any award associated with it... - HyperGaruda ( talk) 09:55, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was keep, with NPASR if the suggested fixes are not implemented. (non-admin closure) Primefac ( talk) 04:22, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Useless for navigation purposes, no clear boundary to prevent obscene growth, little to no evident pattern for users to hop from one topic to the next. See reasons given in prior discussions for similar templates here and here. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 07:07, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
It is not necessary to delete this template, just it has to be improved for better navigation. Some sections could be reduced, but all the template can't be deleted because it's important, the subject is controversial and need to be clarified as best as possible. Navigation template works, I am against of deletion. -- Humberto del Torrejón ( talk) 18:27, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. Opabinia regalis ( talk) 23:34, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
WP:EXISTING -- The navbox is only used in the 2013 League season article, making it hard to navigate. The standard for this type of thing would be a standings template (e.g. Template:Standings Table Start), if there were season articles that existed, which there are not any. Quite frankly, the 2013 Summit League men's soccer season should be deleted as well. But that's another forum. ❄ Corkythe hornetfan ❄ 23:35, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. Opabinia regalis ( talk) 23:35, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. Opabinia regalis ( talk) 23:35, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Template created in 2005 as a test and appears to have no use at all subsequent to that point. Template appears to be orphaned, save for 2 or 3 user page transclusions. Safiel ( talk) 03:10, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. Opabinia regalis ( talk) 23:35, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
These templates denote a minor award that is not a defining biographical element for its recipients. These navboxes are therefore unneeded and clutter more pertinent navboxes in the footers of the bio articles on which they are transcluded. Jweiss11 ( talk) 01:31, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. Month-old, unopposed nomination. Opabinia regalis ( talk) 23:37, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Previous TfDs for this template: |
The family list is something for an infobox, the remaining three links can easily be put in a "See also" section, if not in the main text itself. Of those three, the link to Maqām Ibrāhīm redirects to tiny subsection in Petrosomatoglyph, leaving actually only two meaningful links. HyperGaruda ( talk) 09:24, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Although the following is a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument, I'd like to add that many similar templates were deleted during a previous AfD, this AfD about {Abu Bakr}, and this AfD about {Fatimah}. - HyperGaruda ( talk) 20:36, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was no consensus. Or more accurately, not enough information to judge. There's no links here to the prior relevant discussions mentioned, and having looked at the templates, I can't figure out why you'd want a single, often red wikilink in a template, although the practice apparently has a few defenders. No prejudice against a renomination that explains the context. Opabinia regalis ( talk) 23:42, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Unused, seems to have been created in error JMHamo ( talk) 13:40, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. The claim for keeping mainly lies in the assertion that this is a notable milestone in a player's career. Given that there is no article to corroborate that information, this remains fancruft in the eyes of many. Should an article to this effect be created, I see no reason why it could not be restored, but as of right now there is no compelling reason to keep it. (non-admin closure) Primefac ( talk) 04:27, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
WP:NOTSTATS and simply not notable. — Swastik Chakraborty (User talk) 07:03, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template.The 300-cap version already got deleted. Why would 100 caps be that special, apart from being a perceived likable number in the decimal system (nothing extraordinary about it when written in binary: 1100100)? I do not see any award associated with it... - HyperGaruda ( talk) 09:55, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was keep, with NPASR if the suggested fixes are not implemented. (non-admin closure) Primefac ( talk) 04:22, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Useless for navigation purposes, no clear boundary to prevent obscene growth, little to no evident pattern for users to hop from one topic to the next. See reasons given in prior discussions for similar templates here and here. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 07:07, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
It is not necessary to delete this template, just it has to be improved for better navigation. Some sections could be reduced, but all the template can't be deleted because it's important, the subject is controversial and need to be clarified as best as possible. Navigation template works, I am against of deletion. -- Humberto del Torrejón ( talk) 18:27, 26 January 2016 (UTC)