From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

July 7

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. ~ Rob13 Talk 03:46, 15 July 2016 (UTC) reply

A template with only one link Yellow Dingo ( talk) 23:00, 7 July 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 per BU_Rob13's cogent analysis of the situation. I encourage the editors who feel that {{ Destroyers of the Indian Navy}} is poorly constructed to improve the template further. (non-admin closure)  Primefac ( talk) 03:52, 18 July 2016 (UTC) reply

The class is covered in the template Destroyers of the Indian Navy. I think there is no need of separate template for just three ships. KCVelaga ☚╣✉╠☛ 12:13, 27 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Original discussions merged as they were identical.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac ( talk) 03:49, 7 July 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 per BU_Rob13's cogent analysis of the situation. I encourage the editors who feel that {{ Submarines of the Indian Navy}} is poorly constructed to improve the template further. (non-admin closure)  Primefac ( talk) 03:52, 18 July 2016 (UTC) reply

The class is covered in Template:Submarines of Indian Navy. I think there is no need of separate template for this class. KCVelaga ☚╣✉╠☛ 09:35, 26 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I have merged these three nominations into one; the original discussions are almost identical
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac ( talk) 03:20, 7 July 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. @ Frietjes: Please don't move a template to userspace in the middle of a deletion discussion, since it both confuses things here and technically moves the template outside the bounds of what's appropriate for TfD. ~ Rob13 Talk 17:08, 15 July 2016 (UTC) reply

only used in one article, should be substituted and deleted. due to the complexity, this system should be rewritten in lua if we need it. Frietjes ( talk) 18:36, 24 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac ( talk) 02:43, 7 July 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).
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

July 7

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. ~ Rob13 Talk 03:46, 15 July 2016 (UTC) reply

A template with only one link Yellow Dingo ( talk) 23:00, 7 July 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 per BU_Rob13's cogent analysis of the situation. I encourage the editors who feel that {{ Destroyers of the Indian Navy}} is poorly constructed to improve the template further. (non-admin closure)  Primefac ( talk) 03:52, 18 July 2016 (UTC) reply

The class is covered in the template Destroyers of the Indian Navy. I think there is no need of separate template for just three ships. KCVelaga ☚╣✉╠☛ 12:13, 27 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Original discussions merged as they were identical.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac ( talk) 03:49, 7 July 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 per BU_Rob13's cogent analysis of the situation. I encourage the editors who feel that {{ Submarines of the Indian Navy}} is poorly constructed to improve the template further. (non-admin closure)  Primefac ( talk) 03:52, 18 July 2016 (UTC) reply

The class is covered in Template:Submarines of Indian Navy. I think there is no need of separate template for this class. KCVelaga ☚╣✉╠☛ 09:35, 26 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I have merged these three nominations into one; the original discussions are almost identical
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac ( talk) 03:20, 7 July 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. @ Frietjes: Please don't move a template to userspace in the middle of a deletion discussion, since it both confuses things here and technically moves the template outside the bounds of what's appropriate for TfD. ~ Rob13 Talk 17:08, 15 July 2016 (UTC) reply

only used in one article, should be substituted and deleted. due to the complexity, this system should be rewritten in lua if we need it. Frietjes ( talk) 18:36, 24 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac ( talk) 02:43, 7 July 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).

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook