Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:36, 3 March 2013

All Natural Glamour Solos

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)

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 08:00, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
  • 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 08:06, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
    • 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 are were 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)

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

• 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 16:06, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Also, as I stated before ( ), 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 16:10, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
    • 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)
      • 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 07:03, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
        • 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. and are pretty identical. Cavarrone (talk) 07:35, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
          • Both of those are the exact same link. Erpert 07:36, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
            • Erpert, you've been cautioned before about inappropriately personalizing deletion discussions, 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)

• 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)
  • No objection about a similar outcome. It is sufficient to revert and . I don't see anything else worth merging. Cavarrone (talk) 21:05, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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 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)

• AfD debates (Media and music)
• AfD debates