Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 July 12

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

July 12

[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 as unopposed. WP:REFUND applies. ~ Rob13Talk 04:24, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused (no transclusions) license template, does not exist on Commons, applies to uncommon and very specific cases which could easily be covered by {{PD-because}} FASTILY 23:43, 12 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 as unopposed. WP:REFUND applies. ~ Rob13Talk 04:28, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused (no transclusions) license template, redundant to {{PD-ineligible}} FASTILY 23:40, 12 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. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 00:48, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable single game award that only existed for a few years. Fails WP:NAVBOX criterion #4. Jenks24 (talk) 18:10, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Template:Ian Stewart Medal is now appended to the (existing) associated article at Ian Stewart Medallist. Citations within that article are weak, but awarded 2004~2015 and appears active. Template appears to be similarly appended to the article of each recipient.
Keep Per above. UW Dawgs (talk) 23:26, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ian Stewart Medallist should not be a page and should be redirected to List of individual match awards in the Australian Football League per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack Dyer–Lou Richards Trophy, note that Ian Stewart Medal was AfD during that nomination and the result was a redirect, Ian Stewart Medallist was created quite recently and does not meet notability to warrant its own page, therefore, this nomination for Template:Ian Stewart Medal does meet WP:NAVBOX #4. Flickerd (talk) 12:00, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete now that the article has been redirected per WP:NAVBOX #4 —PC-XT+ 07:11, 20 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. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 22:51, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A standings template should be used and many of these are redirects to the main athletics article, which would mean this template does not navigate. Corkythehornetfan 05:42, 12 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. If and when the included articles are written I see no reason why it can't be recreated/refunded. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 22:54, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One link... Corkythehornetfan 05:41, 12 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. While it's true that 11/18 links are valid (though most are redirects), the main subject of the navbox (the coaches) have only 2/9 being valid. Should the other coaches get articles REFUND would certainly apply. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 00:54, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No articles created... this template doesn't navigate... Corkythehornetfan 05:40, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@UW Dawgs: There is no point in keeping navboxes that do not navigate... which is the purpose of [nav]box. Per WP:REDNOT, this navbox is excessive... Red links may be used on navigation templates with links to existing articles, but they cannot be excessive. Editors who add excessive red links to navboxes are expected to actively work on building those articles, or they may be removed from the template. So either someone needs to start working on these or they should be deleted... (at least four links per navbox – not including the title.) Per WP:EXISTING (which is what I go off of and is similar to REDNOT), Red links should normally be avoided unless they are very likely to be developed into articles. (I don't see this happening anytime soon). Corkythehornetfan 17:59, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
10 of 18 are valid links. You're welcome to delink the others per WP:EXISTING, though this has nothing to do with the WP:GNG topics or deleting the template itself. UW Dawgs (talk) 19:46, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:EXISTING does not say to delink it... in fact, it says "Unlinked text should be avoided." (bullet #2)... Corkythehornetfan 20:15, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or userfy for now as premature, with support for restoring when about half of the coach names (preferably all) turn blue (we count links to pages where the template is transcluded; others are more informational, less navigational, as you can only follow the navbox one way) —PC-XT+ 05:16, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per WP:EXISTING and WP:NAVBOX. We don't use navboxes for non-existent articles because our guidelines say navboxes are used to (quoting NAVBOX) "facilitate navigation between ... articles". Per WP:REDNOT, excessive red links are not used in navboxes. ~ Rob13Talk 04:41, 20 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 deletePrimefac (talk) 00:56, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two links... Corkythehornetfan 05:37, 12 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. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 00:58, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two links... Corkythehornetfan 05:35, 12 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 relist to July 21Primefac (talk) 02:27, 21 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. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 01:00, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two links and a standings template should be used, not a navbox. Corkythehornetfan 05:34, 12 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 deletePrimefac (talk) 01:11, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two links and a standings template should be used, not a navbox. Corkythehornetfan 05:34, 12 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. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 01:14, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No links and a standings template should be used, not a navbox. Corkythehornetfan 05:34, 12 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. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 01:15, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two links and a standings template should be used, not a navbox. Corkythehornetfan 05:33, 12 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. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 01:18, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Three links and a standings template should be used, not a navbox. Corkythehornetfan 05:30, 12 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. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 01:19, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two links and a standings template should be used, not a navbox. Corkythehornetfan 05:30, 12 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. While there are plenty of links, they are to the universities not to the ADs, and the ADs are the focus of the navbox. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 01:24, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two links... Corkythehornetfan 05:29, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two are linked... per WP:EXISTING, Unlinked text should be avoided. Corkythehornetfan 18:01, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Acutually, no redlinks in this one, so strike. 15 of 26 topics are article links with the unlinked being WP:GNG topics. This conference template is consistent with our consensus seen in 11 templates at Category:NCAA Division I athletic director by conference navigational boxes. UW Dawgs (talk) 19:55, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All but two (this one and Western Athletic Conference) have four or more links, which is acceptable and actually navigates the box. Navboxes with fewer than four links are useless and do not navigate. Corkythehornetfan 20:11, 12 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. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 01:26, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two links and a standings template should be used, not a navbox. Corkythehornetfan 05:28, 12 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. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 02:17, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A standings template should be used, not a navbox. Corkythehornetfan 05:27, 12 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. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 01:30, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two links and a standings template should be used, not a navbox. Corkythehornetfan 05:27, 12 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. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 01:34, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A standings template should be used, not a navbox. Corkythehornetfan 05:26, 12 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. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 01:34, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One link... Corkythehornetfan 05:26, 12 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. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 01:34, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One link... Corkythehornetfan 05:25, 12 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. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 01:34, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two links and a standings template should be used, not a navbox. Corkythehornetfan 05:25, 12 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. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 01:34, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two links and a standings template should be used, not a navbox. Corkythehornetfan 05:24, 12 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. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 01:34, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A standings template should be used, not a navbox. Corkythehornetfan 05:22, 12 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. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 01:34, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A standings template should be used, not a navbox. Corkythehornetfan 05:22, 12 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. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 01:34, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two links not enough to navigate... Corkythehornetfan 05:21, 12 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. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 01:34, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Standings template should be used, not navbox. We don't do these for other sports, we shouldn't do it for soccer. Corkythehornetfan 05:20, 12 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. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 01:34, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A standings template should be used, not a navbox. We don't do this for other sports, we shouldn't do this for soccer. Corkythehornetfan 05:19, 12 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. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 01:34, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two links not enough to navigate + the standings template should be used, not a navbox... Corkythehornetfan 05:18, 12 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. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 01:34, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Three links and the standings template should be used, not a navbox... Corkythehornetfan 05:18, 12 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 relist to July 21Primefac (talk) 02:27, 21 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. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 00:45, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One link not enough to navigate. We also don't create individual season navboxes like this... Corkythehornetfan 05:15, 12 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 deletePrimefac (talk) 02:07, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two links not enough to navigate... Corkythehornetfan 05:09, 12 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 deletePrimefac (talk) 02:07, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two links not enough to navigate... Corkythehornetfan 05:08, 12 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. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 02:04, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two links not enough to navigate... Corkythehornetfan 05:08, 12 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. REFUND applies if and when at least two other years get created. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 02:14, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two links is not enough to navigate... Corkythehornetfan 01:26, 12 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 keepPrimefac (talk) 00:44, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Three links is not enough to navigate... Corkythehornetfan 01:20, 12 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. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 00:42, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One link... not enough to navigate. Corkythehornetfan 01:15, 12 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. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 00:40, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One link... not enough to navigate. Corkythehornetfan 01:15, 12 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).