Template:Knight's Cross recipients of JG 26 (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

In context of the bulk nomination (see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 September 2#Template:Knight's Cross recipients of the Fallschirmjäger), the template {{Knight's Cross recipients of JG 26}} was deleted. Since 2017, all of the referenced entries in that template have been fully expanded, attaining at least minimum B-class rating with Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history. The layout of the template follows similar templates such as {{WWII women snipers}}, {{Female HSU Partisans}}, {{Women fighter pilots WWII}}, {{Heroes of the Soviet Union 37th GRD}} or {{Heroes of the Soviet Union 46th GNBR}}, just to list a few. At the time, the template received two votes for keep and two votes for delete. In consequence, I would like to re-discuss the deletion. The closing editor @Plastikspork: has retired. Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:45, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@K.e.coffman, Iazyges, AlfaRocket, and Cavalryman: Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:44, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore template (uninvolved). I've read through the brief discussion, and I honestly cannot say that a rough consensus was achieved to delete the templates. Even when discounting the !vote that is simply expresses a desire for keeping the template without motivation, nobody really addressed anybody else's arguments in the discussion and the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy were basically even. Given that the claim that the template would help with navigation appears to be reasonable, and the deletion discussion really doesn't appear to have achieved a consensus anyway, it makes sense to restore the old template and to allow MisterBee1966 cut it down to include only notable entries. I have no clue whether the other templates are worth potentially restoring nor if they would serve a reasonable navigational purpose, but undeleting this specific one seems reasonable as a time-saving measure if a navigational template for this group would be created anyway.— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:30, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore Template - This is not presented as an appeal, but, on reading the TFD, my inclination would be to Overturn to No Consensus. That isn't be asked, and may be too late, but, in view of both the appellant's statement and the uncertainty of the closure, the request should be granted. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:13, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: yes, this posting was meant as a request for appeal. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:33, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to No Consensus, as per Redtailed hawk, and so restore the deleted template. I have no opinion at this time on whether to restore the other templates. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:43, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]