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 result of the discussion was speedy delete. per nominator. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:34, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Pakistani websites (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Better served by Category:Pakistani websites. Störm (talk) 19:34, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• delete per nom, this is why we have categories and list articles. Frietjes (talk) 16:06, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• This can be deleted per WP:G5 as well: the creator is a blocked sock. – Uanfala (talk) 15:24, 18 December 2019 (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 result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 16:46, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Arcade (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only two releases have articles. Related bands just filler. WP:NENAN. 212.135.65.247 (talk) 15:36, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom --DannyS712 (talk) 00:12, 20 December 2019 (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 result of the discussion was Delete. (non-admin closure) ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 16:40, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:KGC (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only one album. WP:NENAN. 212.135.65.247 (talk) 15:44, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom --DannyS712 (talk) 00:13, 20 December 2019 (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 result of the discussion was merge to Template:ITF profile. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:24, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:ITF junior profile (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:ITF profile (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:ITF junior profile with Template:ITF profile.
The International Tennis Federation have merged their ITF and ITF junior profiles, so this template is now redundant. As the URLs continue to work with the old IDs (take note, WTA!), I suggest that we merge the 2 as the junior profiles no longer exist. Iffy★Chat -- 11:38, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, but don't do a traditional merger. I don't trust the redirect to be in place indefinitely and most of these are now duplicate links. My proposal is to remove all duplicate links and then convert the ID from junior profile to the ITF profile. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 16:36, 20 December 2019 (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 result of the discussion was Don't merge. (non-admin closure) ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 16:24, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Chiefs of Staff of the Wehrmacht (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Generaloberst of Nazi Germany (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Chiefs of Staff of the Wehrmacht with Template:Generaloberst of Nazi Germany.
Could the contents be merged into subsections in the destination template? PPEMES (talk) 00:44, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• comment technically two different things, a chief of staff is a military position, a Generaloberst is a military rank. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:25, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• agree with comment. A generaloberst is not necessarily a chief of staff, which in theory could be any rank, most commonly brigadier general and above. Neither the rank or position have anything to do with the other. Dapi89 (talk) 18:02, 12 December 2019 (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).