< March 26	March 28 >

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 debate was keep Woohookitty^Woohoo! 04:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commercial air travel is just too diverse a topic to be able to able to cram into a template, there seems to be no arbitrary inclusion criteria in the template, which is best served by use of categories and inter-wiki links from articles themselves. Россавиа ^Диалог 21:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Templates like this one are a valuable resource for letting other readers know what related topics exist in an organized fashion. Unlike what the nom says, they cram pages a lot less than a see also section, which can only list a limited number of articles. Templates like these are readymade, and can be placed at the bottom of a page with a few keystrokes, rather than having to determine from multiple, incoherent lists of hundreds of thousands of articles which ones belong interlinked. These templates also allow other readers and editors to know of the existence of other articles that may otherwise go unnoticed, thereby enabling articles that could otherwise remain one-line stubs for years opportunities for improvement. This particular template is a collection of articles pertaining solely to universal concepts in commercial air travel, and is limited as such. It is not intended to include any specific airlines or countries, as that would be too much to list. The guideline as to what types of articles should or should not be included in this template are written in the hidden text, thereby letting others who wish to add anything know about it. Sebwite (talk) 23:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Useful for navigation throughout the various steps of commercial travel; pretty much a template with some basic info in it about commercial air travel. I agree with Sebwite, in that this template probably does cram pages less than a "see also" section. Midorihana^{~いいですね? はい!} 06:55, 31 March 2008 (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 debate was already deleted by User:Pascal.Tesson (no reason given?). JPG-GR (talk) 19:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a template. A non-notable band article.. MBisanz ^talk 16:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete An attempt to upload an article with the Template: prefix. Anyway, the band would be deleted under WP:CSD#A7 so there's little need to keep it around much longer. PeterSymonds | talk 17:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Whilst it's not in the article namespace, it's written as one, so A7 doesn't strictly apply, but we should use common sense, ignore the rules, and just speedy it per WP:SNOW because it's about a non-notable band, just not in the mainspace.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 19:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete non-notable article in the wrong namespace J ɪ m p 01:00, 28 March 2008 (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 debate was Delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Superseded by standard Navbox. — Darwinek (talk) 16:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Superseded and unused. —Ms2ger (talk) 10:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, appears to be a misused clone of ((navbox)). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Superseded by ((navbox)). Midorihana^{~いいですね? はい!} 06:56, 31 March 2008 (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 debate was delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be redundant and not used anywhere.. h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Serves no purpose and appears to be blank. PeterSymonds | talk 17:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, adding prefabricated "See also" sections isn't the conventional way to add related links like this via the templating system, and there are too few entries to make this work navboxing. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - transclusing see also links Think outside the box 16:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Orphaned; too few articles to create a navbox. Midorihana^{~いいですね? はい!} 22:29, 1 April 2008 (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 debate was delete Woohookitty^Woohoo! 04:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant and superseded by ((Asia topic)) as ((Asia topic|Law enforcement in)); I honestly don't know if this should be deleted, or if it can be redirected to the "Law enforcement in" selector or what. I'm open to suggestions. — -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All - I don't understand why people keep creating these when we have "topic in" templates for this exact reason. I've tried to delete some but to no avail. Let's start here. Kevlar67 (talk) 16:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All – If there exists a template which already does the job, these are useless and only serve to make WP harder to use. If, however, it proves that users are to lazy to type in "topic" and "enforcement", merge them all to a ((Lawin)) which would take the form (((({1))} topic|Law enforcement in)). J ɪ m p 00:57, 28 March 2008 (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 debate was delete. Will replace with Foreign relations of templates Woohookitty^Woohoo! 04:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:China ties (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Indian ties (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Croatia membership (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:France ties (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Don't match others of this kind, has many links to articles which don't have PR China or India or Croatia as the main subject (regions or international groups), replaced by ((Foreign relations of the People's Republic of China)), ((Foreign relations of India)), etc. See for example: ((Canada ties)) which was deleted and replaced by ((Foreign relations of Canada)). Mostly these are glorified "see also" sections, not a real navbox at all. — Kevlar67 (talk) 22:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 01:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reasons stated by nominator. Gracenotes^T § 02:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - these can and should be replaced by the 'foreign relations of X' templates. Terraxos (talk) 05:29, 27 March 2008 (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.

March 27

Template:Commercial air travel

Template:ELYSIUM - progressive band from Stoke on Trent

Template:Navigation Peru

Template:Fictional foods

Template:LawinAsia

Foreign relations templates that have improper links