265:, 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"?
211:
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
127:
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
260:
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
242:. 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
212:
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
128:
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
136:
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
216:, 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.
120:
87:
82:
91:
74:
163:, 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.
17:
321:
141:
it is time to break out the filmography, it can be moved, just as this was, by copy and pasting the present filmography.
78:
423:
408:
394:
376:
355:
328:
299:
274:
255:
225:
202:
172:
150:
56:
438:
36:
363:- While I have no opinion either way on the article, my question to those advocating speedy deletion: under what
159:
as duplicate of already existing material, if the consensus is to keep it where it is (which makes sense to me).
437:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
70:
62:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
270:
221:
146:
239:
168:
372:
315:
390:
251:
198:
266:
217:
183:
142:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
129:
404:
368:
310:
295:
262:
364:
386:
348:
213:
164:
421:
367:
would this fall? I don't see any offhand, but perhaps I'm missing something. Thanks.
243:
133:
50:
108:
400:
291:
420:: an unnecessary fork from her main article which adds no extra content. ~~
341:
431:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
399:
It is a part of her article and is an unnecessary fork. --
191:
189:
187:
115:
104:
100:
96:
238:Thay's ok. I urge you to review the guidelines on
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
441:). No further edits should be made to this page.
186:has been inappropriately canvassing for support
261:return to Winslet's article that was made by
8:
385:I suspect they mean 'delete speedily' ... --
193:this should be considered. Thank you. --
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
24:
182:I think it should be known that
1:
139:editors of the page determine
458:
307:per my original PROD tag.
132:, the readable content on
57:00:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
424:20:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
409:01:34, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
395:20:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
377:18:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
356:16:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
329:08:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
300:04:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
275:21:19, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
256:20:32, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
226:04:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
203:04:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
173:03:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
151:02:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
434:Please do not modify it.
244:Kate_Winslet#Filmography
71:Kate Winslet filmography
63:Kate Winslet filmography
32:Please do not modify it.
290:per User:Esteffect. --
180:Note to closing admin
44:The result was
354:
254:
201:
449:
436:
353:
351:
345:
339:
327:
324:
318:
313:
263:User:TreasuryTag
250:
249:
197:
196:
118:
112:
94:
53:
34:
457:
456:
452:
451:
450:
448:
447:
446:
445:
439:deletion review
432:
418:Delete speedily
349:
343:
340:
322:
316:
311:
308:
247:
194:
114:
85:
69:
66:
51:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
455:
453:
444:
443:
427:
426:
414:
413:
412:
411:
397:
380:
379:
358:
332:
331:
302:
284:
283:
282:
281:
280:
279:
278:
277:
231:
230:
229:
228:
214:Angelina Jolie
206:
205:
176:
175:
125:
124:
65:
60:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
454:
442:
440:
435:
429:
428:
425:
422:
419:
416:
415:
410:
406:
402:
398:
396:
392:
388:
384:
383:
382:
381:
378:
374:
370:
366:
362:
359:
357:
352:
347:
346:
337:
336:Speedy delete
334:
333:
330:
325:
319:
314:
306:
305:Speedy delete
303:
301:
297:
293:
289:
288:Speedy delete
286:
285:
276:
272:
268:
267:Wildhartlivie
264:
259:
258:
257:
253:
245:
241:
240:WP:CANVASSING
237:
236:
235:
234:
233:
232:
227:
223:
219:
218:Wildhartlivie
215:
210:
209:
208:
207:
204:
200:
192:
190:
188:
185:
184:Wildhartlivie
181:
178:
177:
174:
170:
166:
162:
158:
157:Speedy delete
155:
154:
153:
152:
148:
144:
143:Wildhartlivie
140:
135:
131:
122:
117:
110:
106:
102:
98:
93:
89:
84:
80:
76:
72:
68:
67:
64:
61:
59:
58:
55:
54:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
433:
430:
417:
360:
342:
335:
304:
287:
179:
160:
156:
138:
134:Kate Winslet
126:
49:
45:
43:
31:
28:
369:Umbralcorax
387:Malcolmxl5
248:neon white
195:neon white
338:per nom.
165:Esteffect
365:criteria
361:Question
323:contribs
312:Treasury
121:View log
161:However
130:WP:SIZE
88:protect
83:history
52:MBisanz
401:Fyslee
292:Fyslee
116:delete
92:delete
46:delete
344:Chzz
119:) – (
109:views
101:watch
97:links
16:<
405:talk
391:talk
373:talk
296:talk
271:talk
252:talk
246:? --
222:talk
199:talk
169:talk
147:talk
105:logs
79:talk
75:edit
317:Tag
407:)
393:)
375:)
350:►
326:─╢
309:╟─
298:)
273:)
224:)
171:)
149:)
107:|
103:|
99:|
95:|
90:|
86:|
81:|
77:|
48:.
403:(
389:(
371:(
320:►
294:(
269:(
220:(
167:(
145:(
123:)
113:(
111:)
73:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.