Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dancing with the Stars (U.S. season 10)
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
- 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 redirect to Dancing with the Stars (U.S. TV series). (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 03:13, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Dancing with the Stars (U.S. season 10) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Per WP:CRYSTAL Airplaneman talk 02:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete completely unsourced speculation. ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 02:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirected to Dancing with the Stars (U.S. TV series) for now. Series will happen, but we're not US Weekly and for now, any talk of contestants is ridiculous and the article should only be created when the actual lineup is announced. This can be closed. Nate • (chatter) 04:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Nate, I mean no offense but, you come across a little heavy handed. I understand this probably won't survive WP:SNOW but I get the feeling you are granting us permission to close this and that's a little over the top for me. Also, AfD is here to discuss what to do, not notify others that you've already done it. Padillah (talk) 13:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a pretty obvious case to redirect. Barring a complete change in direction/dissolution of ABC and BBC Worldwide or one of the hosts/judges pulling a Tiger, there will be a season ten in the spring and at this point, there's no need to go through seven days of discussion to come to the obvious conclusion. Redirects are harmless and can be replaced with an article when the time comes. Nate • (chatter) 07:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Then suggest a WP:SNOW close, but it's not your place to single-handedly decide the fate of this article (despite how right you are). I concede that your assumptions are most likely correct, it's your manner I take umbrage with. AfD exists so we have the opportunity to discuss, eliminating that opportunity within hours is not an acceptable recourse. Also, WP:CRYSTAL is a policy so there's a question of WP:IAR for the sake of ease or WP:CRYSTAL for the sake of policy. That is not your decision alone to make. It requires input from the community. Padillah (talk) 18:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not going to SNOW for one vote; that is for a case in which it is incredibly obvious a keep or delete vote will happen (hoax articles or vandal noms for obvious keeps like nation articles, for instance) by multiple voters. I have taken this action a few times in AfD's where it's obvious seven days of discussion on a topic is needless when a speedy delete or a redirect should have been done in the first place, and the closer and nom also agree with it. Here, there's no crystal-balling at all; a season ten will happen and any network programmer or TV critic isn't going to deny it. Nate • (chatter) 04:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Then suggest a WP:SNOW close, but it's not your place to single-handedly decide the fate of this article (despite how right you are). I concede that your assumptions are most likely correct, it's your manner I take umbrage with. AfD exists so we have the opportunity to discuss, eliminating that opportunity within hours is not an acceptable recourse. Also, WP:CRYSTAL is a policy so there's a question of WP:IAR for the sake of ease or WP:CRYSTAL for the sake of policy. That is not your decision alone to make. It requires input from the community. Padillah (talk) 18:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a pretty obvious case to redirect. Barring a complete change in direction/dissolution of ABC and BBC Worldwide or one of the hosts/judges pulling a Tiger, there will be a season ten in the spring and at this point, there's no need to go through seven days of discussion to come to the obvious conclusion. Redirects are harmless and can be replaced with an article when the time comes. Nate • (chatter) 07:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:CRYSTAL and no real need to keep and defend a redirect, it's easy enough to create articles. Padillah (talk) 13:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect - per Nate. No reason not to have a redirect. Rlendog (talk) 20:57, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.