The result of the discussion was keep/merge. While the lack of consensus for deletion is fairly obvious, it's important to address some specific points and background. Hereafter, I'll use the term "template" (referring to the page's function, not its namespace).
Note that the move to userspace had no impact on this closure. Such a change doesn't confer immunity to deletion (and given the context in which the template is used, it probably was inappropriate). Likewise, a WikiProject has no special authority to control the site's content, so that's another non-factor.
Regarding the assertion of redundancy, it's true that the style difference is relatively minor. Looking beyond this particular debate, there certainly is consensus (which, if anything, has increased over the years) that maintaining consistency within the encyclopedia proper generally is desirable (excepting certain contexts in which it's unfeasible or detrimental, such as that of English variety usage). Conversely, the community has long extended significantly greater latitude to other namespaces (and particularly to pages unlikely to be edited by typical visitors). Additionally, there's longstanding consensus that there are benefits to maintaining visual styles distinct from those used in the encyclopedia (thereby reducing the likelihood of confusion regarding content's nature). This dates back at least to 2005, when we established a standard template color scheme for the talk namespace. (We did the same for other namespaces in 2007 and 2008.) If this template were used in the main namespace, I suspect that the discussion would have gone very differently.
The technical argument is valid, but there's little agreement that it justifies outright deletion. The suggested solution of merging the two templates (thereby converting this one to a wrapper) enjoys greater support and is consistent with decisions reached in similar situations, so those with the necessary know-how should feel free to proceed (and irrespective of that, the "semantic quotation markup" issue should be rectified). —David Levy 13:04, 9 November 2014 (UTC)