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 result of the discussion was Keep. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:20, 22 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Template:Alexandra Burke ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Too small a template. Only links to four possible articles, nothing much. Deleted before the second single. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{( Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC) reply

• Delete. This was previously deleted here at TfD last December as being too premature, and since then there are only an additional two articles to add to it. Navboxes aren't a requirement for singers/musicians, and this one is still too bare bones to be of any real value. PC78 ( talk) 00:30, 15 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Keep The template actually has links to seven articles at the minute, and is obviously going to grow rapidly as more content is added this year. Dt¹²⁸ let's talk 16:47, 15 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Keep There is sufficient information to justifty a template. 12bigbrother12 ( talk) 18:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Keep That template has over 5 links, and that should be enough for a template. Jeremjay 24 00:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Weak keep. Marginal, but just enough relevant links to draw my support. -- RL0919 ( talk) 01:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Keep There's currently enough to justity a template for now, and in the near future the template is going to grow and grow when more information becomes available - future singles for example. ( Kyleofark ( talk) 23:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)) reply
• Keep. Yes, the content in the navbox is lacking, but there's just enough to justify it's useful navigational purpose. — ξ ^xplicit 20:41, 17 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Keep per User:Explicit. It will grow rapidly before we know it. Dale 09:21, 18 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Keep - she's got a #1 single in the UK at the minute and is clearly set for a good future. It links to enough articles as it is, and will only get bigger & bigger! Giant Snowman 20:00, 18 October 2009 (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 result of the discussion was delete. JPG-GR ( talk) 15:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Template:Tfdend2 ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template was once useful to create links to pre-January 2006 TFD discussions. However, as it was only being used on about 12 articles, I have replaced all uses with {{tfdend}} with the "link=" option to generate the appropriate links. It now is unused and redundant to {{tfdend}}. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:33, 14 October 2009 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. Jeremjay 24 00:08, 16 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete as unused and no longer necessary. -- RL0919 ( talk) 00:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Comment the {{ tfdend}} documentation should be updated to indicate how to do this before "2" is deleted, since you'd have to know the structure of the archives. 76.66.194.183 ( talk) 20:00, 17 October 2009 (UTC) reply

  Documentation updated. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:40, 22 October 2009 (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.