Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ivo Shandor
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→Ghostbusters --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article has no notability, no references of any kind to establish notability, and is a minor character in the Ghostbusters movie and should be mentioned there, not have its own stubby article. The only references the article has, the references to the location of the movies climax is already in 55 Central Park West so Shandors article is also duplicative. If you want to contest the articles deletion, prove it has references. -- Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- {{sofixit}}. Just merge it back into Ghostbusters (preferably fixing the self-link). No need to bother AfD for this. ---- Trovatore (talk) 22:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Certainly is; the Ghostbusters article has a good enough plot description, and doesn't need this additional stuff that is already covered in yet another article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's irrelevant to my point. You're effectively requesting a merge, not a deletion -- or a redirect without merge, if you think there's already enough info about Ivo in the main Ghostbusters article. Either of those you can take care of by yourself; AfD is the wrong place to bring it up. If you think the merge or redirect may be controversial (and it appears on the talk page that it may), then the proper procedure is
WP:RM[[WP:MERGE], not AfD. --Trovatore (talk) 18:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]- I am not requesting a merger; there is nothing to merge, all relevent information on Ivo Shandor is listed in the Ghostbusters movie article, so this is all duplicative. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As I said, if there's nothing to merge, then what you want is a redirect without merge. There is no benefit in actually deleting anything -- the search term "Ivo Shandor" is unlikely to be used for anything else, so there's no cost to keeping it as a redirect. If there were something we didn't want even in the edit history -- say, copyright violations that someone would sue for even if accessible only in the history, or illegal material -- then a delete would make sense for that reason. But as far as I know there's not.
- So this is an inappropriate case to bring at AfD. Please consider this in future -- I took a look at your contribution history and it seems to me you bring a lot of these. I haven't looked carefully to see if those are as inappropriate as this one, but it's something to think about. --Trovatore (talk) 04:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems we must agree to disagree, because this article should be deleted, plain and simple, not redirected, moved, rewritten, or expanded, but deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you want to explain what you see as the advantage of not having the redirect? --Trovatore (talk) 18:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems we must agree to disagree, because this article should be deleted, plain and simple, not redirected, moved, rewritten, or expanded, but deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no feeling about it one way or the other. If you want to add a redirect after it's deleted, that's fine. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not requesting a merger; there is nothing to merge, all relevent information on Ivo Shandor is listed in the Ghostbusters movie article, so this is all duplicative. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's irrelevant to my point. You're effectively requesting a merge, not a deletion -- or a redirect without merge, if you think there's already enough info about Ivo in the main Ghostbusters article. Either of those you can take care of by yourself; AfD is the wrong place to bring it up. If you think the merge or redirect may be controversial (and it appears on the talk page that it may), then the proper procedure is
- Certainly is; the Ghostbusters article has a good enough plot description, and doesn't need this additional stuff that is already covered in yet another article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, so now you've basically undermined your whole case. We don't delete articles just to remove content from the history, assuming the content is not harmful in some way (say, illegal or libellous or tortious or copyvio). All you had to do was boldly redirect Ivo Shandor to Ghostbusters, and you get the same effect, except for the history, which AfD doesn't care about. Of course you might run into opposition, but that's essentially a content dispute, again not an AfD matter. --Trovatore (talk) 19:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Just simply state your against the deletion and be done with it, this nomination will run its course because the case for deletion is legitimate and doesn't need to be merged or redirected anywhere. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No one else seems to be interested. Probably because they know I'm right -- it was an error on your part to make the nomination in the first place; you should have just boldly redirected, or else made the case for redirection on the article's talk page. Don't take me wrong, I'm not saying it was bad faith or anything like that, just a technical mistake, possibly based on a misunderstanding of AfD, or possibly you just didn't think of it. --Trovatore (talk) 19:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/redirect per Trovatore. Searching for a character in a popular movie is not far-fetched which would make the redirect useful. There is nothing so harmful in the history that we need to delete it. Better to keep the archives so that editors can look at it in case something else needs to be merged. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:56, 21 November 2007 (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.