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). No further edits should be made to this section.
Delete. Only 4 core links, so fails WP:NENAN, which specifies "at least five articles (not counting the primary article)". In any case, only 1 of the links is to a recording; 3 others are to band members, who are already adequately linked through the head article. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 09:38, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete, not enough core links. Frietjes (talk) 15:08, 3 June 2013 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.
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). No further edits should be made to this section.
Delete. Only 3 core links, so fails WP:NENAN, which specifies "at least five articles (not counting the primary article)". --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 09:39, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete, not enough core links. Frietjes (talk) 15:08, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough links worth navigating. -- Whpq (talk) 18:23, 3 June 2013 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.
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). No further edits should be made to this section.
Delete. Only 2 core links, so fails WP:NENAN, which specifies "at least five articles (not counting the primary article)". --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 09:42, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete, not enough core links. Frietjes (talk) 15:08, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough usefule links for navigation -- Whpq (talk) 18:37, 3 June 2013 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.
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). No further edits should be made to this section.
Delete. Only 3 core links, so fails WP:NENAN, which specifies "at least five articles (not counting the primary article)". Only 1 of those 3 is a recording, and the band members are already adequately interlinked. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 09:52, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete, not enough core links. Frietjes (talk) 15:07, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough usefule links for navigation -- Whpq (talk) 18:38, 3 June 2013 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.
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). No further edits should be made to this section.
Delete. Only 4 core links, so fails WP:NENAN, which specifies "at least five articles (not counting the primary article)". Only 1 of those 3 is a recording, and the band members are already adequately interlinked. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 09:54, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete, not enough core links. Frietjes (talk) 15:07, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough usefule links for navigation -- Whpq (talk) 19:55, 3 June 2013 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.
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). No further edits should be made to this section.
Strictly, fails WP:NENAN. Only links to related articles, not core articles. The 7 lists of songs can easily be transcluded in the article. As far as I could see, the 7 lists contain no links to songs. The Bannertalk 22:23, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NENAN, which specifies "at least five articles (not counting the primary article)"; the links are al to related articles, not core topics. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 09:55, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete, better served by a succession box. Frietjes (talk) 15:06, 3 June 2013 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.
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). No further edits should be made to this section.
This duplicates {{Image requested}} in a much less 'featureful' way (i.e. adds pages to top level cleanup cats instead of 'requested photographs' categories. Revent (talk) 21:47, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (see below). {{Image requested}} is narrow. It doesn't work for an article that has pictures that are inadequate to fully show the topic. Red Slash 23:34, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - {{Image requested}} can cover the case mentioned by User:Red Slash. In fact, the documentation for it states: "If you have a specific idea for another image, then use the |of= parameter to name the specific picture that you would like. This is particularly helpful if there are already images in the article." -- Whpq (talk) 20:03, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to {{image requested}} ; when placeholder images were removed from Wikipedia, a similar banner was also move to the talk page. There's no reason why this should remain as an articlepage template. It's also not a real cleanup template, since there's no requirement that articles have images (unlike being linked to, or having links, or being referenced) -- 70.24.245.196 (talk) 20:10, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To be really specific (for the one article this is used on)... {{Image requested|foods|in=the San Francisco Bay Area|of=an unwrapped mission burrito}}
It is requested that an image or photograph of an unwrapped mission burrito be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
Do not redirect Template is new and only used in one place, and so a redirect would be spurious.....it would just contribute to clutter. Revent (talk) 20:43, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - How do you reconcile the position that {{Image requested}} is too narrow with the explicit example shown where {{Need-images}} functionality is accomplished with the {{Image requested}}? And as 70.24.245.196 pointed out, having it as a cleanup template is a bad idea as adding images is not a cleanup item. -- Whpq (talk) 21:10, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see how that could work! Of course, I'm not an expert on templates and such. But that seems like it could work. Please do redirect it, but I could stand deleting it. Is the documentation a little less than clear at {{Image requested}}? I'm not sure how I missed that... Red Slash 23:44, 3 June 2013 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.
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). No further edits should be made to this section.
delete, not enough to support a navbox. Frietjes (talk) 18:49, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only 2 core links, so fails WP:NENAN, which specifies "at least five articles (not counting the primary article)". --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 09:34, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough useful links for navigation -- Whpq (talk) 20:04, 3 June 2013 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.
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). No further edits should be made to this section.
weak delete, not enough core links, and the band is no longer active. Frietjes (talk) 16:25, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only 4 core links, so fails WP:NENAN, which specifies "at least five articles (not counting the primary article)". --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 09:35, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough useful links for navigation -- Whpq (talk) 20:04, 3 June 2013 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.
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). No further edits should be made to this section.
weak delete, not enough core links, since all the singles are from the same album, so they are well connected through previous and next links in the infoboxes on the single pages, and through the album and artist articles. Frietjes (talk) 16:24, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only 4 core links, so fails WP:NENAN, which specifies "at least five articles (not counting the primary article)". --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 09:32, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough useful links for navigation -- Whpq (talk) 20:05, 3 June 2013 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.
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). No further edits should be made to this section.
weak delete, not enough core links, and the three albums can be linked in the see also section, and the musician's article is connected to the albums. however, a fifth article would be enough to justify the template. Frietjes (talk) 16:19, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only 3 core links, so fails WP:NENAN, which specifies "at least five articles (not counting the primary article)". --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 09:32, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough useful links for navigation -- Whpq (talk) 20:05, 3 June 2013 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.
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). No further edits should be made to this section.
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). No further edits should be made to this section.
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). No further edits should be made to this section.
Delete. Only 4 core links, so fails WP:NENAN, which specifies "at least five articles (not counting the primary article)". £ of those links are to band members, who already closely-enough linked without the navbox. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 09:30, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough useful links for navigation -- Whpq (talk) 20:06, 3 June 2013 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.
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). No further edits should be made to this section.
delete, not enough core links. Frietjes (talk) 16:15, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only 3 core links, so fails WP:NENAN, which specifies "at least five articles (not counting the primary article)". --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 09:31, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough useful links for navigation -- Whpq (talk) 20:07, 3 June 2013 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.
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). No further edits should be made to this section.
weak keep, has five core links. Frietjes (talk) 16:15, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only 4 core links, so fails WP:NENAN, which specifies "at least five articles (not counting the primary article)". --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 09:12, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough useful links for navigation (I count only 4 core links) -- Whpq (talk) 20:07, 3 June 2013 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.
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). No further edits should be made to this section.
weak delete, not enough core links. Frietjes (talk) 16:14, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only 4 core links, so fails WP:NENAN, which specifies "at least five articles (not counting the primary article)". --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 09:19, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the template was updated, so there are now more links. Frietjes (talk) 15:00, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - barely passes NENAN with the update. -- Whpq (talk) 20:09, 3 June 2013 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.
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). No further edits should be made to this section.
weak delete, not enough core links, and the band is not currently active. Frietjes (talk) 16:14, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only 3 core links, so fails WP:NENAN, which specifies "at least five articles (not counting the primary article)". --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 09:28, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough useful links for navigation -- Whpq (talk) 20:10, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete, now has five total links, but only three albums, and the band is not currently active. Frietjes (talk) 16:49, 6 June 2013 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.
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). No further edits should be made to this section.
delete, not enough core links. Frietjes (talk) 16:13, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only 3 core links, so fails WP:NENAN, which specifies "at least five articles (not counting the primary article)". --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 09:29, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough useful links for navigation -- Whpq (talk) 20:10, 3 June 2013 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.
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). No further edits should be made to this section.
weak delete, there are five core links, and if the band were still active, I would say weak keep. but, there will most likely not be any new links added in the future, and the three albums can be connected in a see also section. Frietjes (talk) 16:12, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only 4 core links, so fails WP:NENAN, which specifies "at least five articles (not counting the primary article)". --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 09:13, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough useful links for navigation (I count only 4 core links) -- Whpq (talk) 20:11, 3 June 2013 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.
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). No further edits should be made to this section.
In my opinion fail WP:NENAN, as related articles don't count towards 5 relevant links. Relevancy of record labels is also not clear. The Bannertalk 10:30, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete, not enough core links. Frietjes (talk) 16:10, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only 2 core links, so fails WP:NENAN, which specifies "at least five articles (not counting the primary article)". --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 09:25, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough useful links for navigation -- Whpq (talk) 20:12, 3 June 2013 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.
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). No further edits should be made to this section.
delete, not enough core links. Frietjes (talk) 16:09, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only 2 core links, so fails WP:NENAN, which specifies "at least five articles (not counting the primary article)". --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 09:25, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough useful links for navigation -- Whpq (talk) 20:12, 3 June 2013 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.
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). No further edits should be made to this section.
Delete - unused and navigates nothing. -- Whpq (talk) 20:14, 3 June 2013 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.
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). No further edits should be made to this section.
Subst and delete. Templates are redundant since the season is over for the templates in question. Kingjeff (talk) 01:08, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Subst and delete - The data contained in these templates and the formatting of said is not likely to change in the future, so they should probably just be substituted into the pages they appear on and deleted. – PeeJay 02:28, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Subst and delete info is not going to change and the templates are therefore redundant when it can easily be included in the actual page. NapHit (talk) 06:16, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Subst and delete as above --Jaellee (talk) 11:46, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Subst and delete per the above. Madcynic (talk) 21:28, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Subst and delete I create the CL template, and now I agree that at the end of the tournament is quite useless. Stigni (talk) 08:55, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – For future seasons, instead of putting in the season year, just put in "current." It will avoid having templates put up for deletion every year. Kingjeff (talk) 03:46, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 06:08, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Subst and delete as above, pretty sure there was consensus for this recently for similar tables relating to German football. GiantSnowman 08:31, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Subst and delete as above; I thought there was consensus already. Raul17 (talk) 01:07, 6 June 2013 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.
