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 Plastikspork (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:05, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Cleveland Union Terminal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused Frietjes (talk) 15:14, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Single-use template that should be subst'd onto Cleveland Union Terminal. Useddenim (talk) 17:00, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unneeded duplicate Cards84664 (talk) 17:09, 11 June 2018 (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 no consensus. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:45, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Boffo Games (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

These are all sufficiently linked in their articles--the indirect 'related articles' don't convince me that WP:NENAN is really met. Izno (talk) 15:08, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Meretzky really should have been in a "People" section, since the company was so closely tied to him—I've rectified the issue now. Beyond that, I don't see what good is done by deleting this template. Boffo is an obscure topic whose ambit is not well known, hence my creation of the template to make the connections between its articles more obvious. More to the point, I have been weighing the possibility of a Boffo Games GT (as seen here), and GTs generally require a shared template. If I do ultimately go for the GT, this template will just have to be recreated anyway. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:21, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - If JimmyBlackwing has future plans for this template, and he has put a lot of work into Hodj 'n' Podj and The Space Bar, then there should be value in keeping this template. BOZ (talk) 02:25, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per my above comments, if it matters. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 16:16, 15 June 2018 (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 Delete; deleted as G11 by RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 14:12, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:DoomWiki (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

External links to most open wikis are prohibited per WP:LINKSTOAVOID. I don’t think that the Doom Wiki has “a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors.” This template also has no template documentation. Interqwark ^{talk contribs} 12:26, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as advertisement. I have CSDed G11 it but also commenting here.--DBigXray 11:24, 13 June 2018 (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).