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 no consensus, and the discussion has stagnated. Feel free to renominate it if you would still like to see it deleted. Plastikspork―Œ(talk)22:58, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Clear Keep As creator, I don't understand how it fails WP:NAVBOX: These topics make sense together: they are events that are public-ally focused, and are meant to celebrate and commemorate scientific achievements. I don't understand how the topic is incoherent.Sadads (talk) 18:39, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thats the thing: it meets all but #4 in my mind; you provide no explanation of how it doesn't meet 1-3. When I first created the navbox, most of them were linking to eachother in see also sections, so minimally the navbox meets 5. Cheers, Sadads (talk) 13:02, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename. Should be "Commemorative science events" or "Commemorative events for science" to be more coherent. — Wyliepedia09:07, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. These topics are not really linked together. It's rather a grab bag. "The articles should refer to each other, to a reasonable extent." - This isn't the case. Neutralitytalk19:57, 24 May 2015 (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.
These templates should be deleted because they are not necessary in articles—Categories are sufficient for organizing these links—and because they cause problems with tracking what pages link where. Many of these templates have been deleted recently, starting with the Valdosta precedent, since confirmed here, here, here, here, and here. VC 01:37, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep These templates are useful for readers navigating to related articles. Categories are not as reader-friendly. The guideline WP:CLN states that they complement each other, and neither can replace the other. I also agree with the other points in that guideline. Guidelines should supercede any prior precedents, as guideline reflect the views of a wider group of editors. I also note that none of the precdents listed above, cited the guideline WP:CLN. For that reason, they should all be re-examined for un-deletion. — Lentower (talk) 04:43, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NENAN. And as long as we're citing things from WP:CLN, how about "Navigation templates are particularly useful for a small, well-defined group of articles; templates with a large numbers of links are not forbidden, but can appear overly busy and be hard to read and use." (emphasis added) --Rschen775404:52, 13 June 2015 (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.
