Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erotica (madonna)

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was REDIRECT (for GFDL reasons). Stormie 10:49, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Erotica (madonna)

Already exists as Erotica (Madonna album). I have already merged relevant information. - RoyBoy [∞] 00:08, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete I trust you. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:29, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, redundant/duplicate article. Megan1967 00:53, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Maybe redir so we don't have to go thru this again? Niteowlneils 01:09, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, this is duplicate information. I'd suggest Erotica (Madonna) as a reidrect, not this uncapitalised version. Rje 02:24, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirects are cheap. —RaD Man (talk) 05:43, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect. If you've merged two articles together, you must redirect, otherwise the edit history is lost, violating the GFDL. sjorford:// 09:35, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. GRider\^talk 18:17, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect. Sjorford is absolutely correct. Deleting this would violate the GFDL. — Gwalla | Talk 20:05, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Move to Erotica (Madonna) (deleting redirect) and redirect from there to preserve history. —Korath (Talk) 23:46, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. What is this of violating the GFDL? Until aware that this is true (I'll look, but if you can provide me a cite, that'd be appreciated) then I see no point in maintaining this page as a fork. -SocratesJedi | Talk 01:15, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirects are not forks. See wikipedia:redirects for deletion for when they should be deleted. Kappa 01:20, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • The requirement to preserve attribution after a merge has been discussed many times on the VfD talk page, at the Village Pump, etc. I think you can find the source text at Wikipedia:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License#COMBINING DOCUMENTS. (I might have the section link wrong.) By the way, I vote redirect. Rossami (talk) 01:44, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• When I find an article that duplicates an already existing article, I just merge and/or redirect right away. I don't think it's generally necessary to VfD them. Bearcat 04:53, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Regarding GFDL, don't be silly. Apart from the first sentence, there is nothing in this "article" except for a track listing and a couple of other lists. Information is not copyrightable, only a unique expression of it. In this case, there is no problem moving the information, and deleting the article and its history. Anyway, Delete. (unsigned vote by BM)
• Er...why not just redirect? john k 19:25, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.