Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Filmography of Shivaji
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep redirect. Article no longer exists at this title (has been redirected) — foxj 17:13, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Filmography of Shivaji (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No indication of notability, no references, no content of any value, at best should be merged to parent Shivaji article. besiegedtalk 23:15, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete: great, now we're getting IPs dropping in to blank the page and create wrong redirects. The same editor that created this created yet another article, equally poor and uncited, with the same data in table format, and then another editor (more experienced) moved it to Shivaji in popular culture, but it's still just as bad. So this initial article is apparently no longer an issue. The originator of this article, by the way, is about to find himself blocked if he spends another few hours blundering around like a bull in a china shop and wasting other editors' time cleaning up after him. MatthewVanitas (talk) 05:18, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:05, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Unambiguous speedy delete per the A10 criterion; requesting early admin closure per WP:SPEEDYCLOSE. — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 02:02, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Update. Page has been redirected (which I didn't propose only because at the time that I suggest speedy deletion, the page title was a non-plausible search term; it's since been moved). I don't have any problem with a redirect consensus... anybody else? — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 19:52, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Not really amused by what appears to me to be a deceitful attempt to circumvent the article deletions and review process. I'd have been ok with a merge and/or redirect to the parent Shivaji article, but I'm not sure that redirecting an article that was nominated for deletion to a nearly identical article authored by the same original editor is appropriate, as it would seem to demonstrate that one can get their way here by maneuvering around or circumventing the process. besiegedtalk 20:50, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- While the article to which it's been redirected is by no means good, it's a more complete, more Wikified article; this means that this article either had to be A10 deleted or redirected. I wasn't trying to circumvent anything. I did some of the original cleanup on Shivaji in popular culture, and when I saw this AfD, I thought I'd save y'all some time by pointing out a speedy deletion criterion. Then it got moved to a better title, which made a redirect appropriate (I didn't even do the redirect, so if you want to accuse me of circumventing the process, you'll have to accuse me of conspiracy too). This AfD should be closed because a redirect was the only acceptable alternative to speedy deletion; if you'd like to nominate Shivaji in popular culture for deletion or merger, I may very well endorse it. — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 21:36, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- My sincerest apologies. I clearly misread your statement and didn't have a lot of time to try to check histories: I thought you were implying the original author had done the redirect. Clearly I was wrong, my sincerest apologies and I have no contest with the action you took. besiegedtalk 04:04, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's quite fine! Better to do the wrong thing for the right reason than to not try to do the right thing at all. Two questions now, though: 1) Should someone just go ahead with a non-admin closure of this AfD, since there's no reason to undo the redirect, and this doesn't meet the criteria for RfD? And 2) Should we nominate Shivaji in popular culture for AfD now, or is it a significant enough improvement on this version that it doesn't meet the criteria? (I'm indifferent.) And if the answer is "yes" to the first and "yes" or "maybe" to the second, then let's pick this discussion up over at Talk:Shivaji in popular culture. — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 04:45, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- My sincerest apologies. I clearly misread your statement and didn't have a lot of time to try to check histories: I thought you were implying the original author had done the redirect. Clearly I was wrong, my sincerest apologies and I have no contest with the action you took. besiegedtalk 04:04, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- While the article to which it's been redirected is by no means good, it's a more complete, more Wikified article; this means that this article either had to be A10 deleted or redirected. I wasn't trying to circumvent anything. I did some of the original cleanup on Shivaji in popular culture, and when I saw this AfD, I thought I'd save y'all some time by pointing out a speedy deletion criterion. Then it got moved to a better title, which made a redirect appropriate (I didn't even do the redirect, so if you want to accuse me of circumventing the process, you'll have to accuse me of conspiracy too). This AfD should be closed because a redirect was the only acceptable alternative to speedy deletion; if you'd like to nominate Shivaji in popular culture for deletion or merger, I may very well endorse it. — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 21:36, 16 November 2012 (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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.