Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flittin


 * 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 all to List_of_Still_Game_episodes. No arguments for keeping as standalone articles. Redirects have support - any redirects that may be valid to direct elsewhere can be dealt with via disambiguation if/when the need arises.Michig (talk) 09:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Flittin

 * – ( View AfD View log )

redirect non notable episode articles, all plot, no references. See earlier deletion discussion of a similar episode (used as a test baloon) Articles_for_deletion/Cauld

Nominating for redirect to List_of_Still_Game_episodes Gaijin42 (talk) 16:05, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Also nominating the following similar episodes
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete or redirect as lacking in-depth coverage in reliable, independent third-party sources. Should such sources be integrated into the article, feel free to leave a note on my talk page and I'll take another look. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:42, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   18:17, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  18:42, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

 
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2011 December 24.  Snotbot   t &bull; c &raquo;  05:07, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete all Unnecessary detailed synopses of individual episodes already adequately covered in Still_Game. I'm not keen on redirects for these (and especially for the already AfDed "Cauld"): the single-word episode titles were specifically chosen as commonplace Scots words; it is unlikely anyone who might sbe earching on these terms will expect to arrive at Still Game. AllyD (talk) 10:10, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 03:15, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

 a triple relisting is inappropriate - The previous redirects were overwhelmingly supported, and imo should be used as votes for these tightly related articles. In any case, if nobody objects, then the proposal is non controversial and should be passed. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:44, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect all as proposed. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:28, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. You don't need to bring articles to AfD if all you want to do is redirect them. Just redirect them yourself (or, if there is any opposition to the redirects, discuss the matter on the talk page).  Erpert  Who is this guy? 07:33, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete nobody is going to be searching on this anyway, so, no reason to redirect--198.85.228.129 (talk) 00:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Since a redirect is one of the accepted closes to an AfD in deletion policy, it is perfectly reasonable to bring such changes here in cases where disputes are expected, so they get wider attention. People who do that usually word it in some such way as "delete or redirect," to deal with this possible objection, but that's just a matter of wording. WP is not a bureaucracy, and any tendencies to move it in that direction should be resisted.  DGG ( talk ) 07:46, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You raise an interesting point. I, myself, don't bring an article to AfD unless I am calling for its deletion -- though as you say, if I am open to redirect or (if it has referenced text) to merger), I often indicate as much.  BTW -- our friend Warden criticized me when I said that I thought an article should be deleted, but was open to the merge of one referenced sentence ... saying that by indicating that flexibility I had made the nomination procedurally defective, and subject to a speedy keep.  See Articles for deletion/St. Michael's Catholic School.  So there are editors with differing views.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:56, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I actually only offer the "redirect" as a courtesy to the original editor - somethign along the lines of "your effort will not be completely wasted". Im usually fine with the article actually getting deleted in the end though. Basically I started doing deletes, and lots of them ended up as redirects, so now I offer that if it seems reasonable Gaijin42 (talk) 16:16, 13 January 2012 (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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.