The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 06:52, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Norman Osborn (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This deleted in 2020 and recreated in 2021 by (presumably) the same disruptive editor. ★Trekker (talk) 05:18, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: See 2009 TFD (delete) and 2020 TFD (delete). If this navbox is similar to the previous ones, it is probably eligible for speedy deletion. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:43, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It is not significantly the same (there are many more links). Izno (talk) 02:58, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:58, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think the recreation was not done in bad faith or in deliberate defiance of the delete outcome, but rather due to misunderstanding the closing statement of the 2020 TfD. Izno said to "delete all but one. No consensus on the last." The phrase "the last" seems to be intended to refer to the Doctor Doom article (which was second on the list), but the recreator misinterpreted this as referring to this template, which was the last on the list of nominated templates. Note that the template recreator recreated only this one, not the other templates deleted in 2020. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 01:56, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Mellohi!: I disagree, I think it was 100% recreated with the creator knowing it was deleted fairly. I have "interacted" (@Paulharv2: refuses to ever reply on their talkpage) with this person several times and I strongly suspect that they're not only ignoring consensus but were also using Ip's in 2019 to push cruft on navboxes, and possibly still are.★Trekker (talk) 07:04, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 03:30, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Most of the comic character navgigation templates should be deleted as there is a huge amount of duplication going on with them. Gonnym (talk) 13:23, 3 August 2022 (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(s) or module(s) 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 06:52, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Doctor Doom (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This was nominated for deletion in 2020 and resulted in delete, yet for some reason was not deleted. ★Trekker (talk) 05:18, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Izno see your edit here. Gonnym (talk) 08:53, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment post-close: I'm pretty sure that this template was explicitly kept in the 2020 discussion. Pinging Izno. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:45, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I believe that. I missed that it was explicitly mentioned. --Izno (talk) 19:06, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It's clear to me that the ambiguity in the closing wording is to blame for the confusion. SWinxy (talk) 19:20, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, I noticed the closer too. Thanks for the note. Izno (talk) 02:57, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:58, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per previous consensus. 2001:BB6:5255:E200:4CB6:FA02:730B:D34C (talk) 16:23, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why? It serves no purpose.★Trekker (talk) 07:04, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 03:29, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Most of the comic character navgigation templates should be deleted as there is a huge amount of duplication going on with them. Gonnym (talk) 13:23, 3 August 2022 (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(s) or module(s) 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. Now in use. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 06:55, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Domino Unicode (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Module:Domino Unicode (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:54, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I have now made use of this template to display ((Unicode chart Domino Tiles)). In the future users who want to write Unicode characters of the Domino tiles can use this template without looking up the code points in the Unicode table. --Ytx21cn (talk) 03:11, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  You've added it to a template whose purpose is to display unicode characters by codepoint rather than show dominoes, which seems WP:POINTy and counterproductive. And the speculation about the future in your second sentence has already failed to come true in the months since the template's creation, so why should I expect it to now? * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:44, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I feel like this is a lot like the reaction that I got originally building ((Braille cell)). I don't know how comprehensive the content we have on domino games right now vs. how much is realistically, but I feel like there's a lot of descriptive content that would be facilitated at those sorts of articles by this template. I'd encourage keeping this template and module and just work on going through domino games articles and utilizing this template where it can clarify the prose. VanIsaac, MPLL ^cont_WpWS 04:35, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I've started doing this at Dominoes, and have added a bit of functionality to the template allowing CSS styles to be added. VanIsaac, MPLL ^cont_WpWS 21:58, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:43, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 03:29, 1 August 2022 (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(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 13:31, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Second Ladies and Gentlemen of Colombia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Three links. Fails NENAN. Similar to the previous merger discussion where I changed my vote from merge with another template that since has been deleted, to delete both. This template qualifies for the reasons I stated over there for the lack of minimum of five links. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:48, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 03:27, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete because at least two of these articles should just be redirected – they are sourced to genealogy pages which fail WP:RS, and they consist of one line of WP:INHERITED text... there is no indication that they have any individual notability outside of being married to a Vice-President. Given that they are likely to be redirected, that would only leave one article and it fails WP:NENAN. Richard3120 (talk) 13:15, 1 August 2022 (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(s) or module(s) 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 2022 August 8. ✗plicit 04:49, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Editnotices/Page/Michael_Jackson (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(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 04:49, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Merritt Parkway exits (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template –Fredddie™ 01:45, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete— per nom. Imzadi 1979 → 02:22, 1 August 2022 (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).