Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iron Man (film series)


 * 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   delete. JForget 00:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Iron Man (film series)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article is just one big copy/paste of the Iron Man (film) article. The only salvageable part is the tiny "Iron Man 2" section haphazardly placed in between copied sections. The rest is copied and therefore has attribution problems under GFDL. Atlan (talk) 15:07, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

they are not idenacal. -- Pedro J. the rookie 17:33, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as GFDL violation.--Ygosons (talk) 15:28, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment GFDL expressly allows people to copy content from material released under the GFDL. So while this article might not be appropriate for Wikipedia, it's not a GFDL violation. ƒ(Δ)² 16:09, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - Is it really not possible to fix the GFDL issue with something like Copied? It seems like this should be somehow fixable without deletion.  (No opinion about this article; just curious about the issue.)--Chris Johnson (talk) 16:13, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * GFDL allows things to be copied with attribution. The attribution is in the page history, which wasn't copied along with the text. Besides that, what's the point of having 2 identical articles?--Atlan (talk) 17:28, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, the page creator should have used an edit summary like that in WP:SPLIT. The discussion at WT:Splitting suggests that a dummy edit with the right summary would be sufficient to fix that mistake and bring the article into compliance with the license.  As for what the point is, it would be reasonable to take the Iron Man (film) article as a starting point and edit it down to a shorter summary for the film series article.  Some information or sections may need to be shuffled between the film and film series articles.  I'm not saying it's necessarily appropriate here, but cloning an article as a starting point for a related article can make sense.--Chris Johnson (talk) 18:13, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I am talking about what is appropriate here. This is not a debate on how to properly copy articles. You can only have a "series" article if there's more than one movie to talk about. Right now, there's only one small section on Iron Man 2 in between the huge sections of Iron Man one. It's a pointless duplicate article.--Atlan (talk) 19:10, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I totally agree that the article is pointless and redundant in its current state. It needs substantial cleanup, pruning, and expansion to be useful.  However, if someone did that, it looks like the attribution problem created by the 8th edit could be fixed.  That's all I was trying to determine.--Chris Johnson (talk) 19:34, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe my nom statement focused too much on the attribution part of the article. The real problem is that this article serves no purpose as it is right now. There's no reason to keep the article, because everything can be found in the Iron Man (film) article.--Atlan (talk) 01:49, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Everything but the Iron Man 2 section is copied from Iron Man (film). That's identical enough for me.--Atlan (talk) 17:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I do not think it should be dealeted, there may be a way to save it.-- Pedro J. the rookie 19:25, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It would be helpful if you said how.--Atlan (talk) 01:49, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

as chris jonson said before clean up copy edit, that kind of things. -- Pedro J. the rookie 01:58, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete and stub as a new stub, with proper copyfrom notices and the intro paragraphs of the two articles correctly replicated here, with summary from notices on the talk page... 76.66.197.30 (talk) 02:10, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Keep. This artical can be saved with some work. -- Pedro J. the rookie 20:54, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * What do you want to keep? The article is a copy of another article. You can just as easily start over when there's more to write about.--Atlan (talk) 21:49, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  —PC78 (talk) 09:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Then let's redirectd untill there is more info. -- Pedro J. the rookie 18:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per concerns raised by Atlan. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - fundamentally, copying large chunks of text from the article on the first film is not the way to start this article regardless of whether the attribution problems can be fixed. -- Whpq (talk) 16:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, and maybe create a disambig, stub or redirect. GDFL vio. Abductive  (reasoning) 19:52, 29 September 2009 (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.