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 both. Airplaneman ✈ 01:38, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Call (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Ine (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Couple of obscure templates that don't really seem to have a use. Only currently used one one persons test pages. WOSlinker (talk) 21:34, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. They appear to be dependencies of a template ((if equal)), which was deleted in 2005. No use keeping them, now that we have Parser Functions. — This, that, and the other (talk) 00:04, 23 January 2011 (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 all. Airplaneman ✈ 01:40, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Supreme Seat1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Supreme Seat2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Supreme Seat3 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Supreme Seat4 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Supreme Seat5 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Supreme Seat6 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Supreme Seat7 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Supreme Seat8 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Supreme Seat9 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Supreme Seat10 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Supreme SeatC (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Set of unused templates with undetermined purpose. WOSlinker (talk) 21:16, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Purpose unknown, no scope for use. — This, that, and the other (talk) 00:05, 23 January 2011 (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. Airplaneman ✈ 01:42, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Marina Perez in Ad Campaigns (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Is it really necessary to create a template just to list advertising credits that are already mentioned in the article?  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 21:04, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are right only for models who have A LOT yearly and can't all be mentioned in the articles.--Anen87 (talk) 21:09, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, since this template would not go onto the articles of the companies she was paid to promote, this navbox has no use. Even for a model with a great number of such credits, it would still be article content in template space. Resolute 21:12, 20 January 2011 (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. Airplaneman ✈ 01:43, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Southland Conference Sporting Venues (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Grossly incomplete template that only accounts for football, despite its misnomer as a "Sports Venues" template. Also note that it doesn't link to any venues anyhow, only school articles. Unused on any mainspace articles and unedited since July 2010. Jrcla2 (talk) 19:14, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Feeble excuse for a navbox. The links don't actually go to football stadium articles anyway - they go to university articles. — This, that, and the other (talk) 00:08, 23 January 2011 (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 Redirect. Doesn't really need discussing any further since obvious duplicate, Redirect will do. WOSlinker (talk) 20:20, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:1976 Southeastern football standings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Duplicate of Template:1976 SEC football standings. Jweiss11 (talk) 18:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as duplicate. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:20, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as unused duplicate. cmadler (talk) 18:43, 20 January 2011 (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. Airplaneman ✈ 01:56, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Generations of jet fighter (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template attempts to assign jet fighter aircraft to their various "generations". It's a worthy effort, but, alas, one that I don't see of any encyclopediatic value. First, it's woefully incomplete, and there's no way that can change - unless we're going to list each and every single jet fighter ever built in it! Second, the "generations" classification is EXTREMELY controversial and prone to OR (there have been massive edit wars on Fighter aircraft over exactly this subject), and likely US-centric (since it's the U.S. government's definitons of 'generations' that are usually used). The template is only used on the '# generation jet fighter' articles and Category:Generations of jet fighter. And even as I write this, I notice multiple aircraft on the template that aren't fighters at all - but rather attack aircraft and even some trainers. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:27, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nom says - it has really no encyclopedic value, fighter aircraft generations is the stuff of aircraft enthusiast and marketing people. Subject of many "Mine is bigger than yours" edit wars and on some aircraft articles the describing of which generation the aircraft is is not allowed by consensus due to the ongoing disagreements mainly caused by the use of the term for nationalistic boasting by bias media. As we have a good categorisation of aircraft by decade which works well so this doesnt add any value. MilborneOne (talk) 19:48, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - essentially all controversial WP:OR and probably amounts to POV-pushing as a result. - Ahunt (talk) 21:21, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The jet fighters under each generation provide a good sampling of the type of jet fighter. This is a valuable to end-users and provides a quick inter-wiki linking. Zabanio (talk) 21:53, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per nom - redundant, OR, controversial. - BilCat (talk) 22:29, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Too much of this material is subject to conflicting interpretations. Article prose required for context and attribution. Binksternet (talk) 00:03, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom: fatally incomplete, OR, and conflicting POVs on what aircraft should be what generation, as well as the farcical nature of what the whole aircraft generation concept has become (a sales gimmick). bahamut0013^words_deeds 17:19, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The fact mentioned above that there have been debates about what generation a specific aircraft fits into, indicates that the groups are considered important in the field. DGG ( talk ) 19:42, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Debates among wikipedians and fanboys, not necessarily by authorities on the subject. In addition, I should point out the template includes the Heinkel He 178 - by no means a fighter! The subject is extensively covered at Fighter aircraft. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:46, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• of course it isn't formal evidence, but look at the entire general organization of the articles on the subject are indicative: The very article you cite is divided into sections according to the "generations" you consider ambiguous. We have the articles on First generation jet fighter and so on for the other classes! (and at present we have Generations of jet fighter, though there's a simultaneous AfD for it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Generations of jet fighter Any template may contain errors, and that's no reason to delete it. But from the He178 article I see that though it was never put into service, " Heinkel was undeterred, and decided to embark on the development of a twin-engine jet fighter, the He 280 as a private venture using what had been learned from the He 178." Unless that's an error, I would classify this as a fighter. ) DGG ( talk ) 00:29, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• That is an error. The He 178 was a pure research aircraft. Unless the Bell X-1 is going to be classified as a fighter, the He 178 can't be. And the template is, as noted, redundant to the article, while both the template AND the article are redundant to Fighter aircraft (the article) and the generation articles (the template). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:09, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't really understand your keep rationale. You're stating that because editors disagree on what generation a given aircraft is, that justifies having a navbox that attempts to classify them into those generations? That doesn't really make sense: the fact the the classifications are disputed is weight toward deleting the template as NPOV or OR, and not at all for keeping it. bahamut0013^words_deeds 20:00, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom.-SidewinderX (talk) 23:54, 24 January 2011 (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. WOSlinker (talk) 23:49, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Logan Thunder (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Used in one article alone and would be better off as a list in the body of the article. Mattinbgn (talk) 03:24, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Fix brokenness, subst, and delete. I've had a go at fixing some of the brokenness. — This, that, and the other (talk) 00:16, 23 January 2011 (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 redirect to ((Latin America topic)). Airplaneman ✈ 01:53, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Latin America (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Redundant to ((Countries of South America)) and ((Countries of North America)). Also, appears to be broken (links are unclickable). — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It does work if you put a parameter in. I think the idea was to work like ((South America topic)), but since we have that, we don't need this. Redundant. Delete. Mhiji 13:10, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep we have a WP:WikiProject Latin America, and Latin America, so it seems like there should be a template for it as well. 65.93.14.29 (talk) 04:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - this was redundant to ((Latin America topic)) until November 2010, when I redirected that template to ((Latin America and the Caribbean topic)). It does seem unused, and if we want a Latin America topic template it should really be ((Latin America topic)). I'd suggest the best thing might be to follow ((South America)), which redirects to ((Countries of South America)), and make this a redirect to an equivalent as-yet-nonexistent ((Countries of Latin America)) (i.e. a simple listing, not a topic-like template that takes parameters). Rd232 ^talk 10:11, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:46, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Latin America is an arbitrary grouping of countries. Countries will either belong to North America (inc. Central America and the Caribbean) or South America. So this template is superfluous. For instance, take El Salvador; it already has ((North America topic)) and ((Central America topic)). It definitely doesn't need another "Latin America topic" template. — This, that, and the other (talk) 03:30, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to ((Latin America topic)) 184.144.170.159 (talk) 06:02, 22 January 2011 (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.