The result of the discussion was Delete. (non-admin closure) feminist 09:49, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Unused template for article which has been deleted. T v x1 20:27, 17 January 2017 (UTC) T v x1 20:27, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete and replace with a "See also" link. Primefac ( talk) 14:41, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
The template is too huge to be useful and duplicates the list-article List of United States Post Offices. Its faults, and faults of a related postage stamp template, were discussed with its creator when it was being drafted but they went ahead and created it anyhow. Its creator was new to templates then, I believe, but time has gone by and it is time to delete it. It renders "What links here" useless at any page included in it, because it makes more than 500 (i think) inbound links from its more than 500 (i think) items. This has recently been a bother to me, trying to develop some of those articles. I think it is implausible that any readers wish to navigate by it, instead of by the list-article. It is inferior at each page where it is used to having a simple "See also" link to the list-article. The template list is both duplicative and inferior to the list-article. It would be difficult to maintain and no one is maintaining it. I know for a fact that a number of post office articles that were redlinks in the list-article have been created, and they have not been added to the template. It would be hard to figure out which are the missing ones, and it would be unrewarding to go through the effort. do ncr am 20:08, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Primefac ( talk) 13:26, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Unused template. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 17:59, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Primefac ( talk) 13:25, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Unused template Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 17:58, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was speedy delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 07:15, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
This template is unnecessary. A very short article will be labelled as a stub, which invites its expansion. There is no need for a template to convey the same message more loudly. The third sentence of its message, " If an article consists only of a sentence fragment, use {{ db-a1}} to identify it for speedy deletion instead. " is positively wrong: a sentence fragment may well have enough context to identify the topic of the article (eg "British Olympic swimmer of the 1930s": a fragment, but plenty of context and ineligible for A1). Pam D 17:03, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Relisted on 2017 January 25 Primefac ( talk) 00:10, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete. Primefac ( talk) 00:08, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Links two articles only, which makes the navbox unnecessary. Rob Sinden ( talk) 13:28, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Primefac ( talk) 13:24, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Current squad template for cricket team, now obselete as the team was disbanded in 2014. Jellyman ( talk) 09:41, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete. Primefac ( talk) 13:21, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Unused template. Not sure what it was intended to do. Zackmann08 ( Talk to me/ What I been doing) 03:49, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Relisted on 2017 January 26 Primefac ( talk) 00:44, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Keep. Primefac ( talk) 00:44, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Redundant to Category:Biogeochemical cycle, even if fully expanded to contain all the members that are in said category. Not useful for helping users move between topics. WP:NENAN also applies. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 21:54, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete. (non-admin closure) feminist 09:49, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Unused template for article which has been deleted. T v x1 20:27, 17 January 2017 (UTC) T v x1 20:27, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete and replace with a "See also" link. Primefac ( talk) 14:41, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
The template is too huge to be useful and duplicates the list-article List of United States Post Offices. Its faults, and faults of a related postage stamp template, were discussed with its creator when it was being drafted but they went ahead and created it anyhow. Its creator was new to templates then, I believe, but time has gone by and it is time to delete it. It renders "What links here" useless at any page included in it, because it makes more than 500 (i think) inbound links from its more than 500 (i think) items. This has recently been a bother to me, trying to develop some of those articles. I think it is implausible that any readers wish to navigate by it, instead of by the list-article. It is inferior at each page where it is used to having a simple "See also" link to the list-article. The template list is both duplicative and inferior to the list-article. It would be difficult to maintain and no one is maintaining it. I know for a fact that a number of post office articles that were redlinks in the list-article have been created, and they have not been added to the template. It would be hard to figure out which are the missing ones, and it would be unrewarding to go through the effort. do ncr am 20:08, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Primefac ( talk) 13:26, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Unused template. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 17:59, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Primefac ( talk) 13:25, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Unused template Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 17:58, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was speedy delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 07:15, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
This template is unnecessary. A very short article will be labelled as a stub, which invites its expansion. There is no need for a template to convey the same message more loudly. The third sentence of its message, " If an article consists only of a sentence fragment, use {{ db-a1}} to identify it for speedy deletion instead. " is positively wrong: a sentence fragment may well have enough context to identify the topic of the article (eg "British Olympic swimmer of the 1930s": a fragment, but plenty of context and ineligible for A1). Pam D 17:03, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Relisted on 2017 January 25 Primefac ( talk) 00:10, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete. Primefac ( talk) 00:08, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Links two articles only, which makes the navbox unnecessary. Rob Sinden ( talk) 13:28, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Primefac ( talk) 13:24, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Current squad template for cricket team, now obselete as the team was disbanded in 2014. Jellyman ( talk) 09:41, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete. Primefac ( talk) 13:21, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Unused template. Not sure what it was intended to do. Zackmann08 ( Talk to me/ What I been doing) 03:49, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Relisted on 2017 January 26 Primefac ( talk) 00:44, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Keep. Primefac ( talk) 00:44, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Redundant to Category:Biogeochemical cycle, even if fully expanded to contain all the members that are in said category. Not useful for helping users move between topics. WP:NENAN also applies. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 21:54, 7 January 2017 (UTC)