This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
Do we need this template? I think we don't. It seems ill conceived, sloppy in execution and misleading. in that it links to several articles originally on deities, renamed by this template's creator via a series of redirects. The "regions" section is a mish-mash; some aren't regions at all ("Hindu"?); we've at least one continent (Africa), along with specific peoples and cultures of the same (Egypt, Yoruba), ethnic groups within regions (Australian aboriginal) and one sorry, two linguistic-cultural groupings (Slavic, Celtic). The template's creation is associated with several inappropriate redirects from lists of deities to lists of mythological figures - most should be undone. Not all myths are about deities. Not all deities have myths. User:Yngvadottir has already removed the template's link to Norse deities, and I've removed the link to List of Roman deities. Per the template title, the more useful second section (mythological figures by function) doesn't belong here at all. Haploidavey (talk) 17:49, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Agreed, this is a mess. I do think it serves a useful function: like any infobox-for-lists template, it guides a reader to related lists. Especially since they're things readers will often want to compare. But it needs to be redone, because as-is it's not a list of mythological figures by region. Both lists are incomplete, and the "region" list especially is erratic and poorly thought out.
A better example of this kind of information is at List of deities. I would advocate replacing this template with a new one based on that page. Naleh (talk) 06:29, 20 November 2013 (UTC)