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).
New editor created this navbox while creating two new articles, neither of which is notable and both of which have been nominated for deletion since been deleted. Chris Troutman (talk)17:07, 21 May 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 documentation says "Its purpose is to allow editors to request specific information that must be included in the page when the editor can't come up with a proper prose for it."
I think we can probably agree that talk pages are the proper venue to discuss concerns about information needed in an article. I can think of no reason why we should enable and encourage users to flag their special concern about missing information in an article on the article.
Per the related TfD Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 May 20#Template:Missing information , I should be interested to hear any argument for its retention: are there ever circumstances in which the need that prompts the use of this tag and the explanation of missingness which it requires cannot instead be handled on the talk page or by adding information, however brief, to the article? Absent conceivable arguments in its favour, I recommend we delete this template. --Tagishsimon(talk)12:46, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant to {{Missing information}}. The wording is also much too urgent for an encyclopedia that is a work in progress and if the info is really so critical, it better be added right away or the article handled through a deletion process. Opencooper (talk) 13:04, 27 May 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 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 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).
