July 10
Template:Agricultural Universities in India
- 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 July 19. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades Godric 10:45, 19 July 2017 (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).
Template:Lewis derivatives
- 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) Winged Blades Godric 10:50, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Past WP:OR and into WP:MADEUP. The Type 92 is a Lewis derivative. The others are not, and are not even influenced by it. As usual, unsourced. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:55, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. The articles don't provide any sources for this to be a real thing. --Muhandes (talk) 22:47, 10 July 2017 (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 relisted on 2017 July 21. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:53, 21 July 2017 (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).
Sheffield Shield
- 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:00, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Per concerns/consensus reached at the Cricket Project not to have them for each team, due to template clutter and WP:OR. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:38, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all per nom and note also that there were no squads in team cricket before the 21st century so the very creation of these templates is WP:OR and the allocation of squad numbers is false. Sheffield Shield teams in the 20th century were selected per match from eligible players in the state's grade cricket structure. The selectors picked eleven players and one reserve (known as the "twelfth man") from the various grade cricket teams: there was no squad and there were no player numbers. The players were not contracted to their state association in the same way that current Test players are contracted to their national teams. Really, these should be speedy deleted per WP:HOAX. Jack | talk page 10:00, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @BlackJack: I agree with what you said. But whats the problem with squads which were selected in 21st century and are not WP:OR and are still nominated?Greenbörg (talk) 10:28, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional For transparency, I added all the West Australian templates to the group-nom shortly after Jack's comment. Hopefully this doesn't see me up against the match referee and face missing the next Test... Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 10:15, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all. "Squad" is an anachronism for cricket teams of these dates; the squad numbers allocated inside the templates are an invention. In addition, they create unnecessary clutter. Johnlp (talk) 10:18, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - As well as being an anachronism, the existence of these templates will no doubt lead to template "bloat" for players who were involved in multiple title-winning squads, and this competition just isn't important enough to warrant that. – PeeJay 11:53, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- delete, navbox bloat. Frietjes (talk) 13:11, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- delete for all the reasons given above, plus the fact that they are yet another sad reminder of the few Sheffield Shields South Australia have won compare to NSW. --Roisterer (talk) 00:22, 14 July 2017 (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).
Template:Isambard Kingdom Brunel timeline
Template:Ireland in the European Union
Template:Ir-MoneyCard
Template:Infobox Zoroastrianism
Template:Image-license
Template:Knight's Cross recipients of the Kriegsmarine surface fleet
- 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 July 21. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:52, 21 July 2017 (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).
Template:Knight's Cross recipients of the 26th PD
- 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 July 21. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:52, 21 July 2017 (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).
Template:Fear the Walking Dead ratings and related templates
- 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 July 21. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:53, 21 July 2017 (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).