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. Primefac (talk) 04:28, 4 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Template:Aryanic peoples diaspora (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Ditto. Self-formulated/pseudo-historic nonsense. - LouisAragon (talk) 20:27, 21 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete - As for the other entry. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:34, 21 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Dont Delete Articles in this Temples are closely related to each other but completely abandoned in Wikipedia and the titles are imperfect. This pattern defines their relationship with each other. --Callofworld (talk) 07:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete pronto per nom and Kautilya3. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:17, 22 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete -- This is a personal template, not based on any reliable source. -- Mazandar (talk) 16:56, 26 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[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. Primefac (talk) 04:28, 4 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Template:Aryanic peoples (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Ridiculous in every sense of the word. Self-formulated/pseudo-historic nonsense. - LouisAragon (talk) 20:11, 21 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete -- Agree with nom. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:33, 21 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Dont Delete Articles in this Temples are closely related to each other but completely abandoned in Wikipedia and the titles are imperfect. This pattern defines their relationship with each other. --Callofworld (talk) 07:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete per nom and Kautilya3. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:16, 22 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete -- per nom. -- Mazandar (talk) 16:58, 26 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[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; deleted as G7 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 09:03, 22 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Template:Icosahedral Class I Geodesic Polyhedra and Goldberg Polyhedra (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Icosahedral Class II Geodesic Polyhedra and Goldberg Polyhedra (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Icosahedral Class III Geodesic Polyhedra and Goldberg Polyhedra (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I am the creator of these templates. They've been subsumed into the more general List of geodesic polyhedra and Goldberg polyhedra and are no longer needed. Apocheir (talk) 19:40, 21 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[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. Primefac (talk) 04:28, 4 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Template:At Last the 1948 Show (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No cast in navboxes per WP:PERFNAV Rob Sinden (talk) 09:08, 13 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:20, 24 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[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 relisted on 2017 March 1. Primefac (talk) 00:10, 1 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Template:Transwiki (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Dated transwiki (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Primefac (talk) 04:46, 4 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Template:Teen Choice Award for Choice Fantasy/Sci-Fi Series (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Doesn't link enough articles to provide useful navigation. Rob Sinden (talk) 16:14, 21 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[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. Primefac (talk) 04:46, 4 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Template:Miguel Sapochnik (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

We don't generally have navboxes for directors of individual TV episodes. Fails WP:PERFNAV WP:FILMNAV, as the director is not generally seen as the main creative force behind the episode, in the same way a director of a film is. Compare with other templates in Category:Television director templates. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:28, 21 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep. If film directors have navboxes, then so can a director of a series. And it's also a good and informative template. No doubt. - AffeL (talk) 11:40, 21 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Usually only the creator of a TV series gets a navbox. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:44, 21 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete A mere conglomeration of episodes that can easily be listed on their article. Alex|The|Whovian^? 11:50, 21 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• delete, directing a bunch of single episodes is not significant enough to have a navbox. Frietjes (talk) 15:07, 21 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[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. Primefac (talk) 04:47, 4 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Template:Peter Dinklage (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not enough links to provide meaningful navigation. Rob Sinden (talk) 11:18, 21 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete Minus the headers, this navbox has one link. Another attempt to create everything for anyone related to Game of Thrones. Alex|The|Whovian^? 11:23, 21 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep or Merge. As five links is enough. And Dinklage is going to produce two movies that will be out next year. So this navbox will grow. And lets not forget that Peter is the best actor of all time and Game of Thrones the Best show of all time. - AffeL (talk) 11:44, 21 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above argument for keeping is based entirely upon a fan's view, not a contributor's view. Make it next year. There's no rush. Alex|The|Whovian^? 11:49, 21 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• delete, the articles are already well-connected without the navbox. Frietjes (talk) 15:06, 21 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[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 Relisted on 2017 March 6 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:01, 6 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Template:Talk-warn (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Redirnone-warn (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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 keep. Primefac (talk) 04:45, 4 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Template:Cleanup-PR (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Advert (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Cleanup-PR with Template:Advert.
I'm not sure what the point of having this as a separate template is. Most people would probably just use advert (along with COI if applicable), making this template sort of redundant. Adam9007 (talk) 02:51, 21 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Rewrite Cleanup-PR, which was originally created for WP:NOTNEWS violations. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 03:29, 21 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose - a press release isn't the same as an advertisement. Sure, they may be similar and maybe editing the press release one to make it more distinct from the advert one could be an idea but they are definitely both needed independently. DrStrauss talk 20:13, 21 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose - per above. Press releases are distinct from advertisements. MereTechnicality ⚙ 20:55, 21 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose per above. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:28, 22 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Merge with more generic wording. It's of little significance whether an article is "promotional", "advert-like" or "like a press release". The issues, and the solution, are the same. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:36, 22 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Merge, I agree with Pigsonthewing. It's a minor difference of no interest to anyone, really. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:51, 23 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Merge. I like to use ((Cleanup-PR)) (formerly known as ((news release))) when an article is spammy enough that it reads like a news release, but when it's not so spammy that it reads like an actual advertisement. It might be nice to have two separate templates to indicate two different levels of spamminess. Likewise, we have ((no footnotes)) vs. ((more footnotes)). Another analogy: we have ((orphan)) vs. ((orphan|few)). Still, in the end, I think merging would be more beneficial. ((advert)) is better-known, and is used fifteen times[1] as often. It'd be good to make ((advert)) more general so that it can be used even on mildly-promotional articles. That way, in the long run, more spammy articles will get tagged. —Unforgettableid (talk) 06:56, 23 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Using UW templates as an analogy, ((peacock)) would be level 1, ((fanpov)) level 2, ((advert)) level 3, and ((db-spam)) level 4. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 03:24, 24 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose this nomination is disruptive, putting a notice on all the "advert" tagged pages. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:00, 23 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Banner blindness strikes again. There was a notice already there, after all. Uncle G (talk) 20:28, 26 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose advert and press release are distinct enough issues to tag separately (ie a layman can identify the difference). Additionally, as above, these tags are used widely, and even this nomination is affecting many articles. Lookunder (talk) 07:10, 24 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The fact that there are a lot of articles tagged with these templates is surely a problem with the articles, not with wanting to discuss the templates. Uncle G (talk) 20:28, 26 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose the two are different things. Jbh ^Talk 12:33, 24 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Merge There are no whatsoever distinction between this two. It is better to make Wikipedia more leaner instead of redundant template for almost similar articles issues. Thatonewikiguy (talk) 14:24, 24 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose. We may have articles that reads like a promotional advertisement; we may also have event articles that reads like a routine news report, which is just too detailed and may not be promotional of something. --Tomchen1989 (talk) 01:22, 25 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose The problems presented by a news release are generally not as severe as with an advertisement. Also, I dispute that, "the solution is the same". A lot of cases I've witnessed are primarily the result of over-reliance on sources connected with the subject of the article, and not necessarily caused by an actual COI. The aspersions cast on the authors of the article are much gentler with a ((Cleanup-PR)) than with an ((advert)). —Ipatrol (talk) 06:59, 25 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose No. These are entirely different issues. I've had to use the advertisement issue quite often, but have never ever had to use this "press release" issue. SpikeballUnion (talk) 17:49, 25 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• oppose. Advertising is generally a problem for companies and products, while PR fluff, is subtler and seems to roughly equally affect companies and people. I'm not opposed to clarification or rewording of either templates if found useful. --Animalparty! (talk) 18:35, 26 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose, completely different uses. ((Cleanup-PR)) is for WP:NOTNEWS event articles, as it points out in the smaller text. ansh666 21:16, 26 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose per DrStrauss. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:44, 27 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Strong Oppose  sami  ^talk 10:54, 28 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose per DrStrauss. = paul2520 17:08, 28 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose Those are different templates with different uses. We can't just merge them. FriyMan ^talk 05:25, 3 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Strong Oppose People should be more aware of the fundamental differences between news and advertisements. Popcrate (talk) 23:47, 3 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[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).