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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 14:52, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox cigarette brand (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only 31 transclusions. Redundant to ((Infobox brand)) (Transclusion count: 438). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:38, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Is hProduct better than the microformat that Infobox brand currently uses (hCard, apparently?) If both should use the same microformat, I'll say merge. (Also, I'm unsure which parameter would replace |produced by=, though I probably just overlooked something obvious.) —PC-XT+ 06:37, 26 February 2014 (UTC) 07:03, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to Microformat, hProduct is not yet ratified. That doesn't necessarily mean it is unused, but hCard is certainly a stronger format. Would it work to encapsulate the information in both formats, or would it be better to just use hCard for now? —PC-XT+ 07:34, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

hCard is for "people, places and organisations", not brands. ((Infobox brand)) wasn't using it validly, anyway. I've converted it to use hProduct. (Aside: ((Infobox brand)) is being used for some food products; they should use ((Infobox prepared food)) instead.) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:42, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, definitely, there is nothing to merge; creating a sandbox version didn't take me a minute. See test cases.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 14:44, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as my questions above were answered, and I believe that anything there was to merge has already been done. The difference between owner and producer probably doesn't matter in any of these cases. —PC-XT+ 06:31, 1 March 2014 (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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:43, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Granatkin Memorial (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template for a non-notable youth tournament that should be deleted. It's not necessary to have year-by-year articles, when a section can be added to the parent article. JMHamo (talk) 19:40, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 19:58, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - the notability of the tournament has been (rightly) questioned, and given the number of non-notable/redlink entires it does not seem to justify a template. GiantSnowman 20:01, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. Navigation between a group of related articles per WP:NAVBOX. If you think they are non-notable, use AfD first. NickSt (talk) 09:39, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per WP:NENAN, five links, a lot of red links and four of the linked articles already at AfD. Fenix down (talk) 14:19, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. Per above NickSt. --►Cekli829 07:29, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - There is no reason to have this redundant Navbox anymore as the individual season articles contained within have been redirected back to the parent article per this AfD and the squad articles have been deleted per this AfD... JMHamo (talk) 19:44, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per AfDs —PC-XT+ 01:20, 10 March 2014 (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 relisted on 2014 March 11 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:19, 11 March 2014 (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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:07, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:List of United States cable and satellite television networks (defunct) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Long list only used in one article. Info can be added to that article and this template removed. The Banner talk 11:38, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Indeed, added into that article; contrib was from now-banned editor who loved to mess around with templates and over-templated everything and this seemed to be a lingering string among them. Should've never been a template in the first place. Nate • (chatter) 04:17, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unused —PC-XT+ 07:56, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unused. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:32, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Has this been converted into a list article? I agree the template version seems weird, but this looks like a lot of data collected that would be a shame to lose. Trackinfo (talk) 21:42, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep with no response to my question above, I'll say keep, though not necessarily in the form of a template. This is more of a straight list. Trackinfo (talk) 07:17, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I stand corrected. While trying to check transclusions I missed the history. Trackinfo (talk) 18:32, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was substituted in Special:Diff/597175953 —PC-XT+ 09:17, 1 March 2014 (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 keep Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:08, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Tribes of Serbia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The scope is too narrow, and its theme is not used elsewhere in template space. There exists a category (Category:Ancient tribes in Serbia), as well as a list (at Prehistoric sites in Serbia#Ancient tribes, which could, upon expanding, become a standalone list). Category:Ancient tribes in Serbia has been added to all entries.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jax 0677 (talk) 04:40, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This was nominated by User:Zoupan in Special:Diff/594480212 —PC-XT+ 07:42, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep serves useful navigational purpose. Categories and lists don't offer the same accessibility so I disagree with the nominators argument. —Brian Halvorsen (talk) 05:23, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jax 0677 (talk) 03:53, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Mr. Halvorsen —PC-XT+ 11:19, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Per reasons described by Halvorsen brian. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 04:21, 26 February 2014 (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.