"
RE Thryduulf
My closing statement was not aimed at any user in particular, which you can tell by the fact that I did not refer to any users in particular. You did not specify user names, but you did specify users by their arguments: ""unhelpful meta discussion about the use of T: prefixes in general"", but when an editor writes , incorrectly, you do not use that argument. This way my arguments were rejected explicitly in one stroke, while wrong arguments are still weighing in. The same can be said for the overstated ""consensus"": not thrown out (more on this later). You also have used the comment that it is , which is a malversion of my arguments (you did not find). From all this I feel & read that only my arguments were targeted off-topic.

... not whether T: redirects in general should be deleted. This is bs. I reasoned like: ""a T: redirect is bad in mainspace, so these twelve should all be deleted"". Plain sound reasoning. I did use argumental examples in some places, but I did not, nowhere, argue that other, non-listed Rs are to be deleted. It was someone else who expanded it into too wide  not me. Keep'er ""Technical 13"", I admid this is a third Keep'er, invokes an ""WP:NS#Aliases"". But this time it must be deemed not too general (I can not follow, but I must conclude that). If ""Keep"" individual pages were reasoned to be kept, why not conclude the the others are to go? Requirement for individual mentioning only works one way?
Also, in one point you complain that there was ""no discussion about the individual redirects"". Well, that could also be because an argument applies to the whole list (a logic you disallowed explicitly). Then, when I do point to individually addressed Rs (here above, linked), you do not see a contradiction in that. Even worse, when I do demonstrate there are Rs named specifically, you respond here with but not everybody agreed with you. This does not undo my point that individual templates were addressed. Confusingly, here you are jumping the reasoning.
As was repeatedly pointed out the most recent times that it was discussed the consensus was that at least some were useful and that there was no consensus for a prohibition on their creation or use. Here it is you introducing arguments from *outside* the RfD list at hand. Earlier RfD's outcomes as an argument? How am I allowed to argue with that? WhenI use an argument involving general sanity (not even stepping outside this RfD), it ends up in the bin. And, above I linked tot two more recent R deletion conclusions (a G6 ""non-controversial"" speedy! March 2013, and a full RfD-list deletion in December 2010), that contradict your reasoning. Also you write T: as a prefix or the use of such prefixes in general in the closing and XfD not RfD here. That is an expansion of the topic beyond RfD. Why is that allowed?
It doesn't matter how long ago a consensus was reached - it applies until there is a newer consensus formed, it doesn't somehow expire.and Consensus can change, and older consensuses are often more likely to, but ....  No  was reached. Repeat: there is no consensus. You are repeating an editors' 2007 injection -not a conclusion- into an essay. With that, indeed it is irrelevant how long ago the irrelevance was written: today it is still irrelevant. II note that you took over this bogus claim from an editor. As for old or new 'consensus': can an admin research & report how many T:-redirect were deleted without RfD, over the years? Of course, they leave almost no trace for non-admins. But I'd like to see the numbers & arguments for all T:-redirect deletions since template space was introduced. Some 'consensus' must be visible in there too. There is no consensus. So there is no argument from that  non-existent consensus. And don't blame me for introducing ""history"" as a reason. 

Yes, you argued about specific redirects, but not everybody agreed with you. Out of logic. Why do you say this? You concluded that there was no individual targeting (and check that the nom is addressing them by listing them, and that the nom is detailing arguments very specific). The I point to them, and you jump to arguments. Did you or did you not see them when closing?

 In particular your proving that transclusion didn't work was argued to be not relevant to way the redirect was used (remember these are redirects to templates not templates), and and your opinion alone does not demonstrate consensus. A catch 22 you created. First you complain that no individual Rs were mentioned, then I point to one that was already there, and then you say: but that is not consensus. Yeah, and what did you expect, of an argument??? You only accept arguments that so