Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kate Winslet filmography


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 00:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Kate Winslet filmography

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Without approaching article talk page to discuss, an editor removed the filmography from the article to a new page. It was prodded and the filmography returned to the main article. The editor reverted the return to the main article once more, someone restored it. Still the editor did not attempt to discuss it. The prod was removed with the rationale of "remove prod tag - the Kate Winslet article is getting too long, so a WP:Summary style spinoff is quite acceptable." In checking the size of the article as recommended at WP:SIZE, the readable content on Kate Winslet is at 33KB, well within the guidelines for remaining about 30 to 50 KB. As it stands, there is no rationale or consensus for breaking out the filmography, therefore, there is no point in this page remaining. At the time that editors of the page determine it is time to break out the filmography, it can be moved, just as this was, by copy and pasting the present filmography. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete as duplicate of already existing material, if the consensus is to keep it where it is (which makes sense to me). However, if that is disputed, then this really isn't something for AFD - If anything, it should go to RFC - Because the subject is obviously notable. Esteffect (talk) 03:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Note to closing admin I think it should be known that Wildhartlivie has been inappropriately canvassing for support this should be considered. Thank you. --neon white talk 04:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It was an honest mistake, the three notes I left asking for input here have been reverted. There was no mal-intent in asking them, it was more a matter of alerting people that it had been proposed for deletion. Having said that, it is quite annoying that this should have to even be brought here, as the page was created by removing content from another article with no consensus, or even proposed on the article talk page, and the person who moved the filmography originally would not respond about it, and had done the same thing to Angelina Jolie, with no discussion. I apologize if I did something inappropriate. It doesn't take away from the fact that the page is redundant at this time and should be deleted as a duplication. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thay's ok. I urge you to review the guidelines on WP:CANVASSING. It's ok to inform other editors of a debate and ask for their opinion but it must be done in a neutral manner, you shouldn't ask them to 'support deletion' or any other position in a debate. In terms of the article is there any reason why it can't just be redirected to Kate_Winslet? --neon white talk 20:32, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Listen, assuming all good faith here, I admitted the 3 postings were an error, I know the policy about canvassing, and please bear in mind there was no reason for me to believe the deletion would be controversial. After the person who moved the filmography out of the main article and reverted the return to Winslet's article that was made by User:TreasuryTag, and refused to discuss it, it was simply "Oh geez, what is the point here?" You chastised me on my talk page, you have entered a similar note on this page which really wasn't necessary to do again, I really don't need further lecturing. Please feel free to look through my 24,000+ edits and see if I've ever done that before. As for redirecting, the main question is ... why? It is a direct copy and paste of the filmography that is in Winslet's article and how often is someone who is just looking going to search for "Kate Winslet filmography" instead of "Kate Winslet"? Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:19, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete per User:Esteffect. -- Fyslee (talk) 04:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete per my original PROD tag. ╟─ Treasury Tag ► contribs ─╢ 08:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete per nom.  Chzz  ►  16:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Question- While I have no opinion either way on the article, my question to those advocating speedy deletion: under what criteria would this fall? I don't see any offhand, but perhaps I'm missing something. Thanks. Umbralcorax (talk) 18:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I suspect they mean 'delete speedily' ... --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It is a part of her article and is an unnecessary fork. -- Fyslee (talk) 01:34, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete speedily: an unnecessary fork from her main article which adds no extra content.  [ジャム] [ t  -  c  ] 20:42, 8 March 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.