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) 00:45, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Tv.com person (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Reasoning from the talk page: TV.com content is user generated. As such it is the type of material expressly identified as inappropriate for an external link. The staggering use of this template in contravention of our explicit policy should NOT be encouraged. Also per WP:ELNO and WP:BEANS.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 15:22, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for posting my comments here, ArcAngel. In addition, this particular template's focus on linking to actor's pages impacts numerous living people, giving additional WP:BLP concerns. Active Banana (^bananaphone 15:29, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per ELNO #12 (Links to open wikis).Moxy (talk) 17:06, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per ELNO concerns and in particular the uncertain reliability of the site.--NortyNort (Holla) 21:29, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the nominator's comments. Besides, it does not seem to add anything particularly useful.--Artoasis (talk) 02:27, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Nonscholarly sourceCurb Chain (talk) 06:08, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There are still inaccuracies on bios on that website going back to when it was TV Tome I've failed to correct for some subjects. The site is really too complicated to be used as a biographical source and would not be a major loss to BLP articles in the least. Nate • (chatter) 07:32, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Nate. GcSwRhIc (talk) 20:35, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the nominator's arguments, which are persuasive. Of course that only indirectly helps, as we should have a bot mass remove all links, template or no. DreamGuy (talk) 02:05, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator. Not useful at all. —Mike Allen 06:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Interesting information entirely unsubstantiated. Varlaam (talk) 06:52, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The template is being used as an External link, NOT for inline citations. I don't see much difference with IMDb, which also allows user input, along with their own database of facts. See 'Why Register? list. All these sites are trying to get 'user participation', and we don't refuse to list NYT blogs (and such) because they allow reader comments. Flatterworld (talk) 22:28, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. TV.com is inaccurate, the wikipedia bias and censorhip as a result of choosing TV.com which is not the only TV database, IMDB is good enough as it contains the same information, only with more information and more accuracy. In-Correct (talk) 16:37, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I have several reasons why tv.com should not be used at all for external link templates. I will summarize. Pretty much it is all about inaccurate information. It is a very slow-loading site and IMO badly designed. It is one that follows the bloatware trend. And I also am asking the question: Who decided that tv.com is the official source, simply because it is "TV.com".?! Why not use TVRage, why all this bias and censorship?! TVRage is better designed and contains much more useful information. Yes, it is true that the information is user-submitted, but they require that the information be verified. There is info on TVRage that isn't, and probably never will be, on TV.com but that doesn't mean that it isn't false. Another Wikipedia Editor (Nate, I think) said that the information on TV.com is inaccurate as far back as when it was TV Tome and Movie Tome. I can tell you this from my own experience. I tried to submit information to Tom and Jerry which never got accepted until I signed up at TV.com, under the name "In-Correct". I added the episodes that weren't directed &/or written by Hanna-Barbera. (the Rembrant Films and Chuck Jones's Sib Tower 12, Inc.) Also, some other TV Shows aren't listed in TV.com and I don't know of any link to do so. With TVRage, there is. And also with IMDB, there is. Both sites require that the show be extensively verified before submitting. This makes them reliable sites to use for external links. (As a result of the not being able to submit new shows, TV.com combined ALL Tom and Jerry episodes, including Filmation's The Tom And Jerry Comedy Show, while TVRage has the Tom & Jerry theatricals seperate from the television series.) Even if you do not use TVRage template, you should not use TV.com template, and only keep IMDB template. although it is the Internet MOVIE database, it includes celebrities, production staff, TV shows, and video games. There isn't anything you are going to find on TV.com that you aren't going to find on IMDB. In fact, you are going to find more. So deleting TV.com template and keeping IMDB template is good enough external link for every article. My apologies for this lengthy explanation. Still, you should not have TV.com as external links for every article for people, TV shows, etc. In-Correct (talk) 16:37, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There's a whiff of snowball/avalanche/landslide (or whatever you want to call it) about this discussion; should it just be closed? -Rrius (talk) 04:49, 10 June 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 after necessary conversions/substitutions/what-have-you.

Template:Infobox Pakistan agency (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant, only used in a few articles.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:40, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, there aren't that many, so replacement should be easy. Frietjes (talk) 23:07, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as I said for Template:Infobox Indian jurisdiction: It's better to have fewer robust templates than it is to have more quirky templates for specific topics. This will promote a consistent look and feel to both readers of the articles and to editors in the edit box. Why is this discussed on a per template basis? It's the same issue, discussed over and over again. Waterbuck (talk) 12:27, 15 June 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 after necessary conversions/substitutions/what-have-you. JPG-GR (talk) 23:51, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Province IT (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant, produces one great big fat infobox like the one in Province of Ragusa. Easily replaced.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:16, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It could be easily replaced by Infobox Settlement. - Darwinek (talk) 13:28, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• delete, there aren't that many, so replacement should be simple. Frietjes (talk) 23:06, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and base on Infobox Settlement. That solution requires no changes in articles, whose wikicode stays much cleaner than with Infobox Settlement, and the overall work is much smaller. ~50 articles is not so little. See e.g. ((Infobox Serbia municipality)) for an illustration. No such user (talk) 07:54, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - adding to No Such User's reasoning, Italian provinces are well over 100. There's no need to delete a template and having to manage these articles again. Danirijeka (talk) 19:31, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What on earth are you talking about with "having to manage these articles again". ? The template would be simply replaced with standard, no problems.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:24, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per above. Shahid • ^Talk2me 12:10, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as I said for Template:Infobox Indian jurisdiction: It's better to have fewer robust templates than it is to have more quirky templates for specific topics. This will promote a consistent look and feel to both readers of the articles and to editors in the edit box. Why is this discussed on a per template basis? It's the same issue, discussed over and over again. Waterbuck (talk) 12:27, 15 June 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 after necessary conversions/substitutions/what-have-you. JPG-GR (talk) 23:49, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Infobox Indian jurisdiction (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

• Delete This infobox has long been redundant and for editors such as myself it is a pain in the arse to have to convert DMS into decimal and figuring out what the parameters are, even basic ones. Recently an editor confessed to spending hours just trying to figure something out which is what has prompted this long due TFD. This is absolutely no reason why anybody should spend that amount of time just to figure out a template and there is absolutely no reason why we need a separate infobox for India. The coding for the template is extremely complex, unnecessarily so. See my article on Chamba, Himachal Pradesh I used infobox settlement because it is higher quality and looks much better in the article. Compare to say Lucknow. See what I mean? Also for any level state, district or taluk, the standard infobox can clearly cater for it as seen in Himachal Pradesh. What I propose is a full convert to DMS and a wrapper of infobox settlement for now until at a later date they can be fully replaced with infobox settlement. If there are any specific requirements I may have overlooked we could consider modifying a template to incorporate them, but as far as I ssee, there is no reason why this couldn't be switched to standard.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, I understand! But the problem is that Infobox Indian Jurisdiction is a high-visibility template. Thousands of articles on Indian places use the template. It is going to be a damn tough job replacing it in every article.-The Enforcer_{Office of the secret service} 13:23, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Given the usage, a wrapper template would makeshift until a script is run to replace them. They wouldn't be done manually of course.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:08, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I have spent several hours yesterday simply trying to enter the coordinates for a point to show right. I tried decimal and I tried DMS. The result is exacly the same. The point appears way off east and slightly south. I suggest a simplified version of the generic settlement template is used, as I find it also confusing to have the full very huge template appear in each article, when only 20-30 lines of it are needed in most cases. But I value highly contribution time and I think a (semi?)automated solution should be found for replacing it. Hoverfish Talk 13:50, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• You needn't copy all of the parameters for infobox settlement. In fact you can remove as many as you like. My ideal version is located in the article Gwebin here which contains the basic likely needed parameters. Note though I consider infobox settlements which have an extreme few parameters as problematic because the basic parameters should all be there. If it is stripped down so much that it doesn';t even featrue a map or photo choice or population then its not good enough. But I agree the full version of inofbox settlement is too long. But Gwebin as I say is the ideal length for me.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:12, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment While I have no attachment to this template, it does provide some features non-existent with ((infobox settlement)). Two things I'm sure it does is standardizing on the types of jurisdiction existing in India and providing the correct pushpin map automatically. These can be easily provided in a wrapper template. I'm not sure how commonly it is used, but it also provides for many fields not supported by infobox settlement including IUCN category, more demographics (literacy and gender ratio) and probably more little things. Not sure we really want to keep those though, may not belong in the infobox. --Muhandes (talk) 21:08, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  You can be assured that no parameters will be lost.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:40, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  If there is anything outstanding then these can be noted and added. Infobox Irish place is due to be deleted too and any special features can be added to infobox settlement to cater for it. One thing I like is the hidden codes section, this can be updated in infobox settlement perhaps? It seems the best way to do it I think. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:13, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes but you have not convinced us that there are certain features strongly unique to Indian jurisdictions; that argument allowed Template:Infobox PRC province to easily survive Tfd. —HXL's Roundtable and Record 04:37, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Number of articles using the template need to be taken into consideraton before deleting it. Any script to replace it with new templae will help the articles continue without much hassle. Wasifwasif (talk) 12:27, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Unnecessarily tricky system. Also the layout particularly annoys me, why are the "types" not capitalized? That Ole' Cheesy Dude (Talk to the hand!) 18:48, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah the lower casing on town village and suburb is also another major issue which plagues thousands of articles. No idea why.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:55, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • Delete per nom. On first inspection there seems to be little or nothing that cannot be done with Infobox settlement. Some of the odder fields can be added simply by using the 'blank' fields in Infobox settlement. —HXL's Roundtable and Record 04:37, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. 25.30 N, 82.495 E is real Longitude and Latitude of Ramapur, 10 Km West and 5 Km North from Phulpur Azamgarh. This entry has been recently done by me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.211.83.245 (talk) 12:00, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Your coordinates for Ramapur using this infobox were wrong. Check google maps!! I replaced the infobox in the article with standard like Ramapur, now correct!♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:22, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment First and foremost, as User:Muhandes said, some parametres of this box are missing in that box. Make sure that they re implemented there, and then have a BOT replace ALL before deleting. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 14:10, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment We can redirect this template to ((Infobox settlement)) or make some smart transclusion ((Infobox settlement| pushpin_map = India (({state_name))} | official_name = ((BASEPAGENAME)) |image_skyline = (({skyline))} |image_caption = (({skyline_caption))} |subdivision_type = Country |subdivision_name = India)) and any other key parameters if required. Heading indexing (talk) 05:33, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite as a "smart transclusion", then consider deletion. There are many which call "infobox settlement", and are just smart transclusions of that one. Frietjes (talk) 23:05, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and base on Infobox Settlement, as Frietjes said. That provides the best of both worlds (less work, more uniformity). No such user (talk) 07:59, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite-as said by The Enforcer Infobox Indian Jurisdiction is a high-visibility template, so please create/rewrite before delete this. - Jayanta Nath ^{(Talk|Contrb)} 09:47, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - if the problem is that the template is too confusing or complicated, can't that be solved with proper documentation? Or maybe it could be rewritten as some users have suggested above. --Joshua Issac (talk) 20:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Can't it also be solved by replacing with standard? Why does India need it own template?♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:25, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• So that information specific to places in India may be displayed in the infobox. Isn't that the same reason why we have templates like Template:Infobox US school, Template:Infobox UK place, etc.? --Joshua Issac (talk) 15:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • Delete or rewrite, The functioning of the template, in its present form, is extremely difficult to understand. Surely some change needs to be done.-The Enforcer_{Office of the secret service} 03:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • Delete. It's better to have fewer robust templates than it is to have more quirky templates for specific topics. This will promote a consistent look and feel to both readers of the articles and to editors in the edit box. Waterbuck (talk) 07:17, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • Delete and merge with Template:Infobox settlement, which should become the universal single infobox for any type of settlement, ranging from villages to metropolitan areas. No need to have different infoboxes based on nation. EelamStyleZ (talk) 15:09, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • Strong Keep Without this infobox the article will look dull and many will lose interest in reading the articles. Furthurmore, many pages use this template and will be a hectic job to edit all those pages. Instead of deleting, the template should be upgraded. Iamgymman123 (talk) 07:30, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Have you even read the proposal ??? Does Chamba, Himachal Pradesh look like an article "which looks dull and which many will lose interest in reading the articles." just because it uses a standard template!! Since when LOL has anybody looked at an infobox as being the main article interest?? The proposal is NOT to remove all infoboxes but to switch with standard.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:24, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete: As per Dr. Blofeld. The Jew's got a point! Joyson Noel ^{Holla at me!} 10:37, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Create Smart Transclusion- Its an extremely a bad idea to delete a template which is being used in around 17243 pages. Deletion is an extremely bad option for this template. Some one has to create a bot that automatically converts this template in very page into a Template:Infobox settlement or a smart transclusion should be done. I strongly oppose deletion.-- R.Sivanesh ^{✆ ©} 14:23, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again have you not read a thing that has been said??? The infoboxes will be replaced by a bot, probably converted to infobox settlement wrapper first and then eventually replaced with standard parameters. Nothing is going to get deleted and I'm sick of patriotic Indians with no experience in template maintenance or article writing in general turning up here when they grossly misunderstand the situation.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:35, 20 June 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 Withdrawn (WP:NAC). JJ98 (Talk) 05:22, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Navigates three articles. WP:NENAN. JJ98 (Talk) 09:23, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This template links between five articles, not three. Also, this could potentially be merged with ((Shin Kibayashi)), the primary template for the author. Calathan (talk) 02:32, 7 June 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. JPG-GR (talk) 19:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD-TIA (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The website states "These pictures are available also in high resolution and they can, of course, be downloaded (please see at the bottom of each picture) free of charge, as long as the source is acknowledged." This does not mean public domain at all, especially with the copyright statement at the the bottom. Only one image is tagged with this and it is at PUF right now. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:30, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I noticed the issue and brought it up at WT:NFC, the template is flat out incorrect. -- ۩ Mask 07:53, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Obvious delete as another moment of insufficient understanding. Just because you can download something for free doesn't make it public domain. Plenty of people make this error. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:30, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I believe the source of the misunderstanding is they saying that the site contents contents "...can be used in whole or in part only for personal use, and not for commercial use. The pages in the Press section are not subject to this restriction. The text and images offered there are freely available for editorial use subject to statutory regulations."[1]. Still, not public domain at all. --damiens.rf 14:33, 6 June 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. JPG-GR (talk) 06:25, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ranma ½ episodes (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redirect to ((Ranma ½)). Template is redundant to the main series template. This template furthermore hinders easy navigation as it does not link to all of the articles (notably Ranma ½). G.A.S^talk 06:21, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to ((Ranma ½)) All of the articles in this template are in the other template already. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:47, 14 June 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. JPG-GR (talk) 05:56, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Costa Rica Squad 2011 CONCACAF U-20 Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Templates for youth tournament should not be created according to many discussions at WP:FOOTY GoPurple'nGold₂₄ 05:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - the purpose of a navigation template is to inter-link articles; however, due to the sheer amount of red links (the players in the template are largely non-notable themselves) it cannot serve this purpose, and is therefore obsolete. GiantSnowman 17:24, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete along similar lines to GiantSnowman. Although strictly speaking it's the lack of bluelinks, rather than the presence of redlinks, that's the issue. I have no problem with this sort of template where the majority of articles exist. —WFC— 09:40, 7 June 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 Keep Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:39, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox model (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Content may be inappropriate for BLP. Template contains excessive amount of private personal information possibly considered trivial or not notable. PatrickDunfordNZ (talk) 01:08, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• If the basis for nomination is purely the notion that the template should be deleted for including parameters for things like measurements or weight, then keep, as this info is not private or strictly personal for fashion models - it's career relevant and arguably defining for them.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 03:22, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I agree with Mbinebri. If the information were truly "private" we wouldn't have access to it to begin with. I do not see how adding the truthful measurements, eye color, etc. of an individual to an article with this template, especially when that information relates to their career as a model, creates a BLP issue. Surely the parameters will be vandalized here and there, but what isn't? This template is fine by me. --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 05:19, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I also have to agree with Mbinebri. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 16:21, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Mbinebri.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 16:29, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I agree with Mbinebri.--Anen87 (talk) 21:42, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Which parameters not found in Infobox person are necessary and not trivia? -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:42, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I also agree with Mbinebri.--andreasegde (talk) 07:12, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Agree with Mbinebri Tiller54 (talk) 10:55, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: 8th to agree. Draven (º,;;,º) Corvis^(chat) 17:30, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As per nom. Rcsprinter (talk) 18:34, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Mbinebri. WereWolf (talk) 23:58, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- The infobox person template more than adequately covers actual encyclopedic information. Details in the models infobox are trivial and insulting - measurements and weight are not only unable to be reliably sourced but are frankly offensive. Please try to keep in mind that we are running an encyclopedia here, not a fan site, trivia site, or centerfold stat box. DreamGuy (talk) 02:11, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: Saying the template should be deleted because the inclusion of certain parameters is supposedly insulting/offensive is merely an "I don't like it" argument. Stats for models can be reliably sourced to their online agency profiles, which always include height and bust-waist-hips measurements (and often hair color, eye color, shoe size, etc.). If we were dealing with actresses, I would agree this type of info is not necessary, but we're talking about the fashion industry, where stats are widely advertised and can be important enough to mean getting booked for a job or not. I don't see how this info can be labeled trivial.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 04:11, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's not what i would consider important in a person, but it's key information for the modeling industry. Abeg92contribs 20:45, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Mbinebri. --Vinie007 17:32, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Mbinebri, as well. --The Wing Dude, Musical Extraordinaire (talk) 21:11, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Mbinebri --EatMorePez (talk) 21:29, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. First, rewrite it so it calls the "infobox person", and has a possible module for the modling information. After that we can consider if it is still a duplication. If I recall, the information which is being called out by the nominator is in the person box as well. But, I can see a case based on duplication (like how "infobox actor" was merged). Frietjes (talk) 23:04, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Mbinebri, --Am86 (talk) 06:42, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep An infobox is necessary; so if there are any problems then modify it instead of deleting it. --High Contrast (talk) 09:29, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Mbinebri.--Fashiongroupie (talk) 12:13, 12 June 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.