Skip to current discussions

Purge the cache to refresh this page

On this page, deletion of templates (except as noted below) is discussed. Templates are used to insert blocks of common material into multiple pages, often for standardization purposes.

Templates that have been listed for more than seven days are eligible for deletion when a rough consensus to do so has been reached or no objections to its deletion have been raised.

Template undeletion is not discussed on this page, but on Deletion review.

Please note that stub templates should be taken to Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion.

Deprecated and orphaned templates can be listed here.

What (and what not) to propose for deletion at Templates for Deletion (TfD)

Speedy deletion

If the template clearly satisfies a criterion for speedy deletion for general items or templates, tag it with a speedy deletion template. For example, if the template is a recreation of a template already deleted by consensus here at TfD, tag it with {{db-repost}}. If you wrote the template and request its deletion, tag it with {{db-author}}.

Stub templates

List, normally with the corresponding stub category, at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion.

Policy or guideline template

If a template is part of (the functioning of) a Wikipedia policy or guideline, it cannot be listed at TfD separately. It should be discussed where the discussion for that guideline takes place.

Userboxes

List at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion, regardless of what namespace they reside in.

Template redirects

List at Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion.

Renaming a template

List at Wikipedia:Requested moves.

So what's left for TfD?

Other templates not listed above, including most templates in the template namespace. A nomination here may be appropriate whenever one or more of the following apply:

1. The template is not helpful or noteworthy (encyclopaedic);
2. The template is redundant to another better-designed template;
3. The template is not used, either directly or with template substitution (the latter cannot be concluded from the absence of backlinks);
4. The template does not satisfy Neutral Point of View (NPOV) and cannot be modified to satisfy this requirement.

Templates for which none of these apply may be (and often are) deleted by consensus, nor do these criteria apply in all cases (for example, templates meant to be transcluded in user space, like other content there, need not meet NPOV).

If a template is being misused, consider clarifying its documentation to indicate the correct use, or informing those that misuse it, rather than nominating it for deletion. Initiate a discussion on the template talk page if the correct use itself is under debate.

How to use this page

To list a template for deletion, follow this three-step process: (replace TemplateName (do not include the namespace identifier "Template:") & template with the name of the template to be deleted)

It is generally considered civil to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the template that you are nominating the template. To find the main contributors, look in the page history or talk page of the template.

Also consider adding to your watchlist any templates you nominate for TfD. This will help ensure that the TfD tag is not removed.

Discussion

Anyone can join the discussion, but please give a reason when saying what you think should be done with the template. Please explain how, in your opinion, the template does not meet the criteria above. Comments such as "I like it," while potentially true, generally do not fulfill this requirement. It also helps if you Bold your actual action (for example, Keep or Delete).

People will sometimes also recommend subst or Subst and delete and similar. This can be roughly "translated" into merge, and means the template text should be merged into the articles that use it (done by adding the subst: prefix to the template call, hence the name) before the template page is deleted.

Keep in mind that only very rarely are templates here orphaned (made to not be in use) before nomination. It is unhelpful to vote "keep until orphaned" or similar. Please instead phrase it as "delete" or "delete after orphaning".

Administrator instructions

Current discussions

July 24

Template:Coord named

Template:Coord named (|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

Nominating template "Coord named" which is:

• not referenced by any real Wiki articles Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Coord_named, and
• is just a redirect to template "Hcard-geo". LeheckaG (talk) 21:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Template:U-17 Mexico Squad 2005 World Cup

Template:U-17 Mexico Squad 2005 World Cup (|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

It's a list of players who won the 2005 U-17 football (soccer) world cup, that world cup isn't really notable. It's also the only country to have a template, the other countries that were in the 2005 U-17 World Cup don't have a template. — BlueRed 20:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Template:Seth Rogen

Template:Seth Rogen (|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

The template includes Seth Rogen's various involvements in the film industry, ranging from minor to major. The precedent has been to delete actor templates due to the varying sizes of their roles, and it has not been commonplace to have writer templates, at least for people like him who are not quite famous in that capacity. Rogen has no directing credits, either, otherwise the template could have been adjusted toward that as is commonplace. Thus I place it here for deletion. — Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Per nom and precedent. Actors shouldn't have their own templates. Lugnuts (talk) 18:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Template:notability-inline

Template:Notability-inline (|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

Notability (per wp:notability) only affects entire topics and articles, therefore inline-notability is basically meaningless. The likely intent of this template was to challenge the prominence of particular authors or views (as in wp:undue or other neutrality topics); However, the 'inline-notability' name makes that confusing. not many links to this page, and most of those from talk pages. Ludwigs2 03:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Confusing template, no real use. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 17:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Template:Neighborhoods of Norwich, CT‎

Template:Neighborhoods of Norwich, CT‎ (|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

It is an old copy of Neighborhoods of Norwich, Connecticut, it is unused and it is not a template. — -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Serves no apparent purpose. --Friejose (talk) 15:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Article in template-space, not used anyway. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 17:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

July 23

Template:ISO 3166-1

Template:ISO 3166-1 (|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

Nominated per WP:Avoid instruction creep, I suppose. This seems to be a solution looking for a problem. It is a very complex template which appears to be intended to replace wikicode like [[Thailand|TH]] with {{ISO 3166-1|TH}}. This doesn't seem to be a big win to me—the plain wikicode is obvious to any editor, and isn't really significantly different in terms of character count (longer, actually, with this example). — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Support - Notice if you trace the links back that it is used within two other templates: {{vgrelease tbl}} and {{vgrelease new}}. That said, the {{flag}} and its derivatives can be configured to accomplish the same task. SharkD (talk) 21:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Per SharkD's response, this may now be a WP:CSD#G7 speedy deletion. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 22:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Template:ISO 3166-1 alpha-2

Template:ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 (|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

Not transcluded anywhere in article space. Appears to be a duplication of the table in the ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 article, but there is no need to also have a version in the template namespace. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Template:C to F

Template:C to F (|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

This template is obsolete since there is {{Convert}}. — Bender235 (talk) 20:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. {{x to y}} templates are preferred by editors who find {{convert}} cumbersome in many situations. No reason to delete a perfectly functional template; it's not like it's not used anywhere.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't make a whole lot of sense having dozens of templates for °C-to-°F, °F-to-°C, ft-to-m, m-to-ft and so one, if there is {{convert}}, which is easy to implement and rich in function. ––Bender235 (talk) 23:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Do we have dozens of such templates? As far as I can see, for temperatures (in °C & °F) we only have {{convert}}, {{C to F}}, and {{F to C}}. Hardly an overkill.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. There's no reason to switch to Template:Convert if it isn't necessary. This template is much better, performance-wise. --- RockMFR 01:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

It is better “performance-wise”? How? Is it faster or what? ––Bender235 (talk) 08:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe RockMFR means that this template does not push the template expand limits as much as {{convert}} does. Preprocessor node count for {{convert}} in its simplest form ({{Convert|45|C|F}}, for example) is 220 vs. {{C to F}}'s 50, post-expand include size is 391 vs. 74 bytes and the template argument size is 328 vs. 12 bytes. The difference is not all that critical in many cases, but sometimes, on template-rich pages, every byte counts, so it is good to have another option to fall back on.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment—It is redundant, yes, but Ezhiki does (and RockMFR does, if that what he means) have a point about pushing the template expand limits. So, certainly, on template rich pages ... "rich" meaning "rich" i.e. about four thousand such transclusions ... {{C to F}} will be preferable.

An aside:

{{convert|45|C}} is slightly simpler and does slightly better

NewPP limit report

Preprocessor node count: 217/1000000

Post-expand include size: 325/2048000 bytes

Template argument size: 330/2048000 bytes

Expensive parser function count: 0/500

You also make a small saving by specifying the precision {{convert|45|C|0}}

NewPP limit report

Preprocessor node count: 161/1000000

Post-expand include size: 147/2048000 bytes

Template argument size: 209/2048000 bytes

Expensive parser function count: 0/500

If, however, the reason for keeping {{C to F}} is to avoid pushing the limits, I'd suggest its code be tightened up. It may be good with respect to limits but it could be much better, remove the option for linking, for example (you won't need that several thousand times on the one page).

As to the other point about {{x to y}} templates' being preferred by editors who find {{convert}} cumbersome in many situations: beauty, it is said, is in the eye of the beholder, perhaps cumbersomeness is on the keyboard of the editor. Is {{convert|45|C}} any more cumbersome than {{C to F|45|precision=0}} (note: most of the {{x to y}}s lack {{convert}}'s input-sensitive default rounding)? That aside though, no, it's not as if it's not used anywhere: I count 54 transclusions of {{C to F}} as opposed to {{Convert/°C}}'s 800+. This surely says something about editor preferences. JIMp _talk·cont 17:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Template:Conspiracy and Template:Conspiracy-section

Template:Conspiracy (|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

Template:Conspiracy-section (|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

Apparently the opposition's answer to {{Dismissiveness}}, template is POV and is covered entirely by the other templates within Wikipedia:Template messages/Disputes‎. Given the POV nature of both this template and Dismissiveness, there is a high probability of abuse. — Cumulus Clouds (talk) 17:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• Weak delete due to other more concrete tags being available, mislabelling of stuff that is actually a conspiracy, and the only usage apart from the mislabelling is from a banned user, see below my reply to Jim for details. It could have some legit uses. what cumulus says. Delete See my comment on Template:Dismissiviness below. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
• Keep This template serves a purpose. I use it. Jim (talk) 00:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• *takes a look at User_talk:JimBobUSA and sees the ANI threads on Yamashita's gold* Hum, errrrr, by any chance you are only using it on Yamashita's gold-related stuff? The one that is actually talking about a conspiracy and thus does not deserve this tag on the first place and looks like an example of abuse of this template? The one that already has a {{totally-disputed}} tag at the top? Also, since the dispute is about is about a bad source, wouldn't it be better to use there {{refimprove}}? I see that you also used this tag to replace {{POV-section}} [1]. Sorry, I don't agree much with this usage.

I see some other pages where the template is used, but it was added by the banned user Clear Channel Communications[2], Building insulation materials[3] (altought other editors must be agreeing with the tag, because they didn't remove it in 4 months). --Enric Naval (talk) 03:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• Neither of those tags were doing any meaningful work on those articles so I removed them. They didn't really establish what part of the section "sounded" like a conspiracy theory or what could be done to fix it. The other, more specific tags, do this job. Since this tag is written as an accusation -or a meaningless suspicion- its usage would be abusive. If a user sees something they don't agree with in an article, they can easily slap this tag on it and remove all credibility from the text. Since it doesn't address any specific concerns, it would be impossible to identify what could be done to improve it. Again, this was originally for "left wing conspiracies," so it's a highly POV tag and has no useful purpose. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 03:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Template:Dismissiveness

Template:Dismissiveness (|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

POV template (formerly "Right-wing dismissiveness) that is already covered by {{weasel words}}, {{pov}}, {{original research}} and others. The red versus blue scales are a clear indicator of the original bias and the template has no practical use as a tag. — Cumulus Clouds (talk) 17:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• Delete The original wording referred to "right-wing dismissiviness" [4] o_O It hasn't changed much since then, and it appears to be the mirrored opposite of "left-wing conspiracy" Template:Conspiracy [5] that is also on TFD right above. It still looks like just a complaint that people are refusing to remove harsh criticism from articles. The creator User:Piercetheorganist has been banned from wikipedia, the template is not in use on any article, and I think that not even the author himself ever used it. Maaaaybe the text in bold could be reworded to a more neutral version. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Delete also redirect Template:Dismiss --Enric Naval (talk) 18:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Per those above; POV-pushing, unuseful template. —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 23:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Poorly-worded, useless template. Use a template that directly addresses a single policy/guideline. --- RockMFR 01:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Template:Carly Smithson

Template:Carly Smithson (|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

Reasons are the exact same reasons for the recently deleted Kristy Lee Cook debate. That debate is here. Just way way too early for this. Wait until Carly has had a hit or two. — Woohookitty^Woohoo! 04:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom and relevant discussion. —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 23:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete I redirected both singles per WP:MUSIC (translation: neither single charted), and the Christmas album appears to be a self-release and/or permanent red link. Wait until she's put out more content first. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 17:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Unnecessary template for now only two direct wikilinks. Aspects (talk) 20:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Template:Authorship claims

Template:Authorship claims (|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

Excessively bitey template that dilutes the privacy policy and uses legal jargon when firm wiki policy will do. MBisanz ^talk 01:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - this is a template which I copied from commons, where it is commonly and usefully employed for people who continually upload obvious copyright violations despite warnings to the contrary. I do not believe that a template warning users for a copyright violation is worthy of deletion. In fact, I have seen this template work well on commons when users realize that lying about copyright can have real world consequences, and promptly admit the violation and ask for deletion. The Evil Spartan (talk) 02:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Seldom used, and IMHO it is rather bitey. —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 23:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Template:WoD Legacies

Template:WoD Legacies (|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

Unhelpful navigational template. There are only two bluelinks in the template, one of which is a redirect. All but one of the other articles have been deleted. Even the bluelink in the title of the template is actually a redirect. --Craw-daddy | T | 00:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Serves no purpose, given that all but one of the blue links is a redirect, and the rest are all red links that appear to be permanent red links. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 17:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

July 22

Template:MTS parallel stations

Template:MTS parallel stations (|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

Template violates NFCC and removing the images would render the template useless. Also nominating {{MTS blue-line}}, {{MTS green-line}} and {{MTS orange-line}}. BJ^Talk 22:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Template:Saint Vincent and the Grenadines at the Commonwealth Games

Template:Saint Vincent and the Grenadines at the Commonwealth Games (|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

Seems a bit pointless when it only links to one article. Buc (talk) 20:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Aye, it was only linked to one article, but that's because the other articles aren't made yet. I've made a stub for a second one. In any case, this is part of a series of similar templates. BTW, why is there no TfD notice on this template? Grutness...wha? 00:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, not pointless. Punkmorten (talk) 09:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Lots of red-links, but the templates makes sense. --Friejose (talk) 23:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - just because the articles haven't yet been created doesn't mean that they won't be. It encourages article creation. matt91486 (talk) 04:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Template:Miami Dolphins All-Time Team (1966-2007)

Template:Miami Dolphins All-Time Team (1966-2007) (|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

This template, as indicated here, this team was assembled by fan vote at a newspaper website. It is not affiliated with the Dolphins and therefore has no real notability outside the readers of the paper. How many other websites have held similar polls in their lifetime? — ►Chris Nelson^Holla! 16:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. This isn't a championship team roster or a navbox of hall of fame players - those are fine. This is a navbox of a fan vote from a newspaper of who the best players in team history were. I could start my own poll and get similar results, yet it wouldn't be notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia as a navbox unless it was a team-sanctioned, "official" anniversary or all-time team, which this isn't. Pats1 ^T/C 18:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  • If that is what this navbox was, something like the best Pats of all time according to Ron Borges, I'd agree with you that it should be deleted. But that's not the situation here.--Friejose (talk) 21:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment The above two comments were placed within the debate for {{Ararat Yerevan 1973 squad}} below, but I'm pretty sure they actually belong here..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
      • That's right, and my comment refers to the argument below. As for this template, I agree with Pats1 and think this Dolphins template should be deleted.--Friejose (talk) 13:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Football navboxes

Template:Ararat Yerevan 1973 squad (|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

Template:1966 Neftchi Baku squad (|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

• Delete per recent WP:FOOTY consensus about football navboxes and templates, which says, among others, only general club navboxes should be used, not specific years' ones. - Darwinek (talk) 11:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - This is crazy. If we had navboxes for every championship winning team, the bottom of pages like Rangers F.C. would look terrible. – PeeJay 11:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as per above. --Jimbo^[online] 12:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Really not necessary. пﮟოьεԻ 57 12:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. In the context of Azerbaijani football, this club is particularly notable, witness the celebrations and commemorations in Baku for its 40th anniversary as referenced in the Neftchi Baku PFC article. The 1966 team is the preeminent team in the history of Azerbaijani club football, and therefore, has special notability. Further, this template is not like a general club box as it does not appear on the club page, but rather only on the pages of relevant team members. Thus, contra to what PeeJay2K3 says above, this box will not clutter the main page of a club, as it doesn't and won't appear there. In fact, such a box as this is very helpful to Wikipedia users in understanding the context within which specific players played, especially in the case of players, like Kazbek Tuaev or Alexander Trophimov (for example), on which very little information is available in English. If this navbox is wrongly deleted, the players' pages on which it appears will be devoid of useful and notable context unnecessarily. Look at the players it links to and tell me if their pages look cluttered. I don't think they do, and the WP:FOOTY consensus referred to above does not apply here. --Friejose (talk) 14:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  • One further note, and then I'll keep quiet, these navboxes is no different that the navboxes that exist for most World Cup sides (for example, see Brazil's 1966 WC template), in that they single out a very notable, specific side that has relevance beyond a typical championship side. If we delete these templates, we should delete templates like the WC boxes too.--Friejose (talk) 15:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
    • "Further, this template is not like a general club box as it does not appear on the club page" - yes it does, it's right there at the bottom!!!!! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Notwithstanding your exclamation points, the 1966 box appears nowhere on the Neftchi Baku PFC article. The two navboxes at the bottom are for the Azerbaijani Supreme League 2008-09 and regarding this year's Intertoto Cup. Frankly, I think the "slippery slope" argument is a bad one. Clearly, there is a dedicated group of WP:FOOTY members who are vigilantly watching for templates regarding football, as shown by the nomination and discussion here. These people are not going to disappear. But if a specific template has significant support, as these two do, I don't see how this is a precedent for all templates for all time. If a template of a specific squad is nominated for deletion in the future and its supporters cannot muster arguments why it should exist, it will be deleted. Additionally, people keep speaking of a prior consensus. Putting aside that such a consensus was reached in the abstract and without the participation of many of the people here (thus, calling into question its validity), no one has linked to this consensus or consensus discussion. In light of the persistent misunderstanding of the role of these navboxes, i.e. they appear on players' articles not on club articles, I question whether any prior consensus is applicable here.--Friejose (talk) 13:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
        • Apologies for the confusion, I meant that the Ararat template is used on the club page...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. If a club as a huge number of titles, be it domestic league or other, one can create special article devoted to the club's honours, etc. But if a club has won just a few times, why not to place so called golden squads in the main article? I see no problems with this. It's just another useful info.--Avdav, (talk)
• Keep. I am not an expert in the area but I do agree the navbox is very informative to be placed at least in the articles about players. As above mentioned, it is difficult to get more information about them in English. And also, I completely agree with Avdav's comment above. Gülməmməd ^Talk 17:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
• Weak keep per Friejose. --Boguslav (talk) 18:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Can be be very important.--Baki66 (talk) 18:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per our guidelines. Consensus has not changed. Punkmorten (talk) 09:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - keep these to an absolute minimum - i.e. World Cup squads only. Keeping these two will be the thin end of the wedge, and lead to huge amounts of templates listed on club articles and player pages. - fchd (talk) 11:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as per WP:FOOTY guidlines. This would set a terrible precedent if allowed to be kept. If a particular historical quad is deemed noteworthy then they may be listed in the article in question, a template is not necessary.
• Comment - Another thing to consider regarding these templates is that the majority of players listed in them are not notable. The Ararat Yerevan navbox has six bluelinks out of a total of 17, and the Neftchi Baku one has six bluelinks out of 26. If the players themselves aren't notable, what makes the squad as a whole notable? – PeeJay 17:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I think they are much more notable than hundreds of 19-year old kids who played professionally two matches, we have here. Remember that they are league champions, the reason they are red-linked is a system bias against Eastern European region. Compare number of articles in category "English footballers" and e.g. "Hungarian footballers" or "Soviet footballers". User:Karaboom is currently creating great articles about Soviet footballers, it is a step in the right direction. - Darwinek (talk) 19:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Karaboom is doing a tremendous job, and I've been trying to help him. There are tons of notable Eastern Bloc players out there who are currently red-links, and if you look at Russian Wikipedia, you'll see that many of them have dozens of international caps, were on medalist Olympic squads, and the like, but are red-linked here because there is a paucity of information about them in English or on the web generally. Whatever is decided with this TfD, I appreciate Darwinek pointing this out, and I encourage you all to help out creating articles on notable Soviet era players.--Friejose (talk) 20:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
      • All I'm saying is that a navbox should not exist when the majority of the items being linked to don't currently have articles. If more than half of the links were blue, I might feel differently, but there are too many redlinks there to be ignored. – PeeJay 00:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
        • I don't really think that the amount of current redlinks should be the biggest concern if the subjects do meet notability. It encourages articles to be created about notable subjects. matt91486 (talk) 04:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete this is going to set a dangerous precedent: such a decision would allow a (huge) squad template for every winning team, bringing to a terrific explosion of the navbox sets. People like Paolo Maldini, for instance, would have a navbox list composed by at least 20 templates like these. Oh dear. --Angelo (talk) 08:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment, not for nothing, but this already happens . . . a lot. For one, of many, examples, look at Dick Advocaat's article. But this standard, we should delete all manager navboxes too. --Friejose (talk) 13:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment Actually, I also agree about removing all squad templates regarding national teams from the Wikipedia (with the exception of World Cup champions and runners-up), so it's not really a issue to me. --Angelo (talk) 15:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete a navbox for navbox's sake. Terrifying precedent. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - It's informative, so what harm would it be to keep it Baku87 (talk) 13:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Winning the Soviet Top League is not a notable enough achievement to be deserving of a navbox. Winning the Champions League might be, but not the Soviet Top League. –