Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Culture of Buffalo, New York

: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 speedy redirect to Buffalo, New York. Since the main article is very large a split is at some point unavoidable. So if discussed and done properly with a summary this could have survived. I'm going to be bold and close this by redirecting to the main article so it can be undone after proper discussion if desired. Mgm|(talk) 12:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

=[[Culture of Buffalo, New York]]=

:{{la|Culture of Buffalo, New York}} ([{{fullurl:Culture of Buffalo, New York|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Culture of Buffalo, New York}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

This is an undiscussed and potentially unnecessary fork of content from Buffalo, New York. The split was not done in accordance with the Wikipedia:Splitting guideline, meaning attribution of the content found within was not maintained, nor was a summary section left in the parent article -- nor was just about anything else from the guideline done. {{user|Levineps}} seems to have a history of article splits just like this one (see User talk:Levineps#Legacy of Harvey Milk). I recommend this be remerged to Buffalo, New York; if discussion later determines that a split is necessary, it can be performed correctly at that point in time. Powers T 23:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Note, I am asking for deletion, not a merge, despite my wording above. Once this article is deleted, I will revert the removal of the content from the parent article, so no true "merge" is necessary, and the redirect should not be kept. Powers T 23:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - Agreed. No consensus built prior to the split, and the article wasn't split correctly. The user has done this sort of "rogue splitting" with many articles, without any discussion prior to it, leaving gaping wholes where the content originated. In this case, see Buffalo, NY#Culture for my point. I agree that this page should be deleted, and its content placed back onto the original article (if I'm reading LtPower's proposal correctly). Killiondude (talk) 01:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - The content should be included in the main article until it gets too big. He has just split an article of mine (John Beilein) and I am trying to get an explanation from hem about his editing.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete, same reasons as above. (To be honest, this editor does this kind of undiscussed, unwarranted, unsummarized splitoff so much that when I run across it, I just undo the main article change and redirect the split back to the main. I can't be bothered going through the AfD apparatus every time, even if it does leave an unnecessary redirect lying around). Wasted Time R (talk) 02:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Question What's wrong with having the redirect itself? Nyttend (talk) 03:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I suppose it's probably all right to keep a redirect, though it's a rather unlikely search term and has no incoming links. Powers T 11:51, 6 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.