Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/All Natural Glamour Solos
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 redirect to All Natural Glamour Solos (film series). J04n(talk page) 18:10, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All Natural Glamour Solos[edit]
- All Natural Glamour Solos (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)
I'm nominating this one as it appears a patent WP:REDUNDANTFORK from the article about the whole film series (All Natural Glamour Solos (film series)). The whole content of the article is already included in the parent article, here there is just a duplication of informations. No need to split, especially as the parent article is quite short and could still be expanded. A simple redirect could be enough, but the creator does not seem to accept this kind of action. Cavarrone (talk) 06:30, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For the same reasons (for the last two it only changes the name of the parent article, Mother-Daughter Exchange Club) I'm also nominating:
- All Natural Glamour Solos, II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Mother-Daughter Exchange Club 12 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Mother-Daughter Exchange Club 17 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- If you bothered to check the history of the parent article, you'd notice that I already removed the so-called redundant information. What's your problem, anyway? Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 08:00, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- And I did the same thing here. No one has complained about any of these articles I created but you, you know. And you should really take another look at WP:ATD. Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 08:06, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- With respect, your above link to WP:DISRUPTIVE as well as your edit summary here are an overreaction and disruptive themselves. Especially as the deletion of these stubs would not results in a lost of contents, that
arewere already (and still could be) included in the parent articles. And I am still not convinced that the deletions of a couple of lines from the parent articles now make these spinouts necessary, but if the community thinks differently so be it. Cavarrone (talk) 08:33, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- With respect, your above link to WP:DISRUPTIVE as well as your edit summary here are an overreaction and disruptive themselves. Especially as the deletion of these stubs would not results in a lost of contents, that
- And I did the same thing here. No one has complained about any of these articles I created but you, you know. And you should really take another look at WP:ATD. Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 08:06, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No, this is disruptive because you know that this kind of issue is not what AfD is for, as you stated yourself in your nomination. And my removing those lines from the parent article is no different from removing album and single information from the parent article of a musical artist when a separate discography article is later made. (BTW, if you're in turn calling me disruptive, I suggest you read WP:POT.) Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 16:06, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, as I stated before ([1] [2]), those two films have their own articles because they each won their own awards. This is why I didn't create separate articles for all the films in the series. Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 16:10, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, they won their own awards, and these awards are all already listed in the parent articles (at least until you will delete them to create the illusion that these spinoff stubs are somehow necessary). Still, you should explain how these articles does not fall under WP:CONTENTFORK. And I wonder why you want so much six articles while two are enough to include all the contents (that basically consists in a list of actors and a list of awards). Cavarrone (talk) 17:02, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Why I want so much six articles? What? Anyway, I wasn't aware that the award wins being listed in both the parent article and the separate articles violated WP:CONTENTFORK; where does it say that, now? And if you had a problem with any of this (albeit, as I noted above, you're the only one), you should have brought it up on the talk page instead of opening up an AfD, especially since you don't even want anything deleted. (Being such an active Wikipedian as you state on your user page, I would think you'd set a better example than this.) Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 07:03, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I tried to redirect them, you know. And I would even opened a merge discussion if there was something worthy of merging, but, as the article's contents were absolutely identical, there was nothing to discuss. And, just to inform you, even with the lines you deleted from the parent articles the problem is still there: eg. [3] and [4] are pretty identical. Cavarrone (talk) 07:35, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Both of those are the exact same link. Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 07:36, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Erpert, you've been cautioned before about inappropriately personalizing deletion discussions[5], and you know perfectly well, especially given the large number of porn articles you created that were AFD-deleted, that quite a few users rejected your opinions. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:36, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Why are you bringing up something that happened over a year ago? And if you were even paying attention, you would notice that the nominator doesn't even want the articles deleted; he wants them redirected. Sheesh, don't you ever quit? Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 06:10, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Erpert, you've been cautioned before about inappropriately personalizing deletion discussions[5], and you know perfectly well, especially given the large number of porn articles you created that were AFD-deleted, that quite a few users rejected your opinions. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:36, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Both of those are the exact same link. Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 07:36, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I tried to redirect them, you know. And I would even opened a merge discussion if there was something worthy of merging, but, as the article's contents were absolutely identical, there was nothing to discuss. And, just to inform you, even with the lines you deleted from the parent articles the problem is still there: eg. [3] and [4] are pretty identical. Cavarrone (talk) 07:35, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Why I want so much six articles? What? Anyway, I wasn't aware that the award wins being listed in both the parent article and the separate articles violated WP:CONTENTFORK; where does it say that, now? And if you had a problem with any of this (albeit, as I noted above, you're the only one), you should have brought it up on the talk page instead of opening up an AfD, especially since you don't even want anything deleted. (Being such an active Wikipedian as you state on your user page, I would think you'd set a better example than this.) Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 07:03, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, they won their own awards, and these awards are all already listed in the parent articles (at least until you will delete them to create the illusion that these spinoff stubs are somehow necessary). Still, you should explain how these articles does not fall under WP:CONTENTFORK. And I wonder why you want so much six articles while two are enough to include all the contents (that basically consists in a list of actors and a list of awards). Cavarrone (talk) 17:02, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, as I stated before ([1] [2]), those two films have their own articles because they each won their own awards. This is why I didn't create separate articles for all the films in the series. Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 16:10, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd really rather not be in the middle of this discussion (since I'm guessing that the two editors above might have a history together that I don't understand), so I don't plan on adding it to my watchlist. All I will say is that a merge of Mother-Daughter Exchange Club 12 and Mother-Daughter Exchange Club 17 to the parent article Mother-Daughter Exchange Club would seem to me to be much more appropriate. Hopefully, that can be entertained at some point instead of just deletion. Guy1890 (talk) 20:24, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
* Keep or possibly merge Mother-Daughter Exchange Club 17 , borderline notability, not a delete candidate, i don't know why a merge wasn't first done but there is no need to delete it. Insomesia (talk) 21:09, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
[reply]
- Keep or possibly merge Mother-Daughter Exchange Club 12; I don't as of yet see the need for a stand alone article when there is a perfectly good parent article. But deletion is not the answer here, merge should have been proposed first. Insomesia (talk) 21:15, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge All Natural Glamour Solos and All Natural Glamour Solos, II; no reason to delete, a merge is probably the wisest course until the parent article is too big and spin outs are needed. But no reason to delete. Insomesia (talk) 21:18, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]- Keep, or perhaps merge, but with awards comes secondary source discussion, more research is probably needed to determine precisely how much secondary source coverage there is overall. — Cirt (talk) 10:19, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all and redirect per nom. No information to merge beyond what is in the series articles. No sign of RS coverage of the individual releases. These downscale "awards" are not the "major award[s] for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking" called for by WP:NFILM, but junky tinfoil trophies that AVN showers on its advertisers; every video series that regularly buys a half-page or larger ad in the mostly-advertising magazine receives such nominations and awards. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:30, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you actually prove any of this about AVN awards, HW? (And for the record, an article doesn't have to be deleted in order for it to be redirected.) Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 06:05, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, let me take a different perspective here...as was pointed out here, there is no real guideline for pornographic films, so you can't really claim that Best Solo Release is a "junky tinfoil trophy" kind of award (outside of your own opinion, that is). Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 05:50, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Still, it remains the point that there is "no information to merge beyond what is in the series articles". At best, a minor award could authorize us to create an article about the film (or better about the series), not groups of stubs about the same films and with identical contents. And even after the start of this discussion I don't see any attempt to expand these one-sentence stubs in order to justify the splitting. Cavarrone (talk) 06:16, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:SPINOFF would be being violated only if the separate articles were non-neutral. And they're not "groups of stubs about the same films"; they're a parent article and a few "child" articles. Speaking of that, remember earlier when I said "my removing those lines from the parent article is no different from removing album and single information from the parent article of a musical artist when a separate discography article is later made"? How is this any different? And the reason the awards are listed in both places is because if they weren't listed in the parent article too, casual users might look at it and want it deleted because they think it's just another run-of-the-mill porn movie. Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 15:26, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Still, it remains the point that there is "no information to merge beyond what is in the series articles". At best, a minor award could authorize us to create an article about the film (or better about the series), not groups of stubs about the same films and with identical contents. And even after the start of this discussion I don't see any attempt to expand these one-sentence stubs in order to justify the splitting. Cavarrone (talk) 06:16, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and redirect per nom; these content-forking permastubs are covered in the parent articles. AVN awards are not the "major awards" required by WP:NFILMS. Miniapolis 18:51, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You do know that that argument didn't work when you made it here either, don't you? And again, an article does not have to be deleted in order to be redirected. Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 08:40, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Please address the content, and not the editor. Miniapolis 14:42, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Um...I did address the content. Did I call you a name or something? Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 17:26, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Please address the content, and not the editor. Miniapolis 14:42, 10 March 2013 (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.