Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 April 25



Template:Good Article

 * 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).  No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete. If consensus to flag GAs emerges, the template can be restored. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 09:45, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

This template adds a GA icon, like an FA star, in mainspace, but there is currently no consensus to give GAs recognition other than behind the scenes. A similar template was deleted in the past (Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_March_25), but I didn't speedy this as re-creation of deleted content because a) I can't see the old template to see how similar it was, and b) it's been 3 years, people might feel like revisiting this. I posted a message a couple days ago at WT:WGA but got no response. Anyway, the template is no longer used anywhere (it was used in 3 articles, and I removed it from all of them). r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 14:02, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think this is the forum to revisit the issue of whether GAs should be flagged. There has been no consensus to do so in the past, but if such consensus emerges it will be trivially easy to recreate it. On the grounds that this template ought not be used in articles, I move that it be deleted. Skomorokh  14:11, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as there is no consensus to have such a template, and speedy delete as recreation of deleted material (G4 for future reference); considering the conclusions of all the discussions over it, unlikely to ever have support, but support comes first, not a template. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 15:38, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete based on reasons stated above. Finell (Talk) 20:36, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * A TfD is not the place to revisit a contentious issue like this. By all means delete the template if it causes offence. It, or something similar, can be recreated if there is a future need. Geometry guy 21:07, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Move to creator's user space (without redirect); the issue of whether articles should be marked in this manner should be discussed elsewhere. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 11:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose deletion This template is the centerpiece of a larger debate on whether to tag GAs with a small icon in the upper-right corner the way FAs are tagged with a star. While thus far, it appears that the debate is going the way of WP:PERENNIAL, I don't think that the template should be removed immediately. Rather, why not tag it with some type of historical identifier, or link the details of the template to the "great green dot debate" articles. But overall, I think for historical purposes in reviewing the debates, it helps to have this template present to put those debates into context. Dr. Cash (talk) 13:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - There is no consensus for this icon, so template serves no purpose. Garion96 (talk) 13:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - this is what we have a Village Pump for. --Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 09:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:NZDCurrencyConversion

 * 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).  No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete --Magioladitis (talk) 01:36, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Nowadays it is unsd, there are better soulutions to this problem. Last modified in 2006.. Ksanyi (talk) 11:08, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Is redundant with CurrencyConversion. If that template is kept, this one isn't needed.  If that one is deleted, this one would surely have to be deleted for the same reasons anyway. Also, only 4 pages link to this (and three of them are these deletion discussions), so deleting it won't have any consequences. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 14:11, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:CurrencyConversion

 * 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).  No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete - Nabla (talk) 22:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

It is redundant, nowadays there are better soltions to this prblem. It was last canged in 2006.. Ksanyi (talk) 11:00, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - unused, and presumably no longer needed. Robofish (talk) 03:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Jackie Chan Films

 * 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).  No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was speedy delete as G4. Per previous discussion at Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_January_16.  So Why  18:31, 27 April 2009 (UTC)



From a previous discussion that actors should not have their filmographies in template form. Note that this template has previously been deleted before, albeit under a slightly different name.  Lugnuts  (talk) 08:31, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per previous discussions. Garion96 (talk) 08:37, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, per . Cirt (talk) 08:42, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete - recreation of previously deleted material. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:20, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per precedent. PC78 (talk) 10:31, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * SNOWy delete Not necessary, already a precedent not to have these, G6.... r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 14:13, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per precedent and maybe replace template with Jackie Chan filmography in a "See also" section. We don't need to clog articles with a template covering bit roles to major roles. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 14:52, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete as recreation of deleted material, and per other discussions. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 15:36, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete for every reason already cited. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 20:58, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep; it serves a useful purpose. --Jonathan Drain (talk) 14:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Susan Boyle

 * 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).  No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Magioladitis (talk) 01:38, 3 May 2009 (UTC)



She's a great story but there is way too little on her for a navigational template. She's never released any of the songs listed as hers. It's just simply too early. Once she's released a CD, maybe there should be a template. But not now. User:Woohookitty Diamming fool! 04:24, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed, delete – Nothing in the navbox is solely about her, so delete for now.  TheAE  talk / sign  04:42, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - though I hope there will be need for this one day. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:20, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:CRYSTAL, not enough articles for a template.--Otterathome (talk) 10:50, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment While I created this template, it was to tidy up from the previous misusing of the KT Tunstall Template, which you can see was originally setup from this edit here. I hope deleting of the Susan Boyle template does not result in reusing other artists templates. Regard, SunCreator (talk) 12:06, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If any such template is readded after the close of this TfD, then simply remove it. Such is entirely unnecessary at this stage of the game. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 18:32, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete No problem with her having an article but there is no point her having a template just yet. BUC (talk) 17:57, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete completely unnecessary. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 18:32, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Far too premature. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 20:59, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - far too early for her own template. Recreate when/if she becomes a recording star! GiantSnowman 00:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - none of the subarticles in the template are about songs that Susan Boyle actually wrote, only those that she sung! And Britain's Got Talent is in a lone category. This template is completely premature and does not compile a list of related articles like template boxes are supposed to do. --haha169 (talk) 04:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete association with songs merely by a single performance/very limited release does not justify inclusion. Hekerui (talk) 23:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 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). No further edits should be made to this section.