Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/From My Cold Dead Hands

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, then made into redirect. DS (talk) 18:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From My Cold Dead Hands[edit]

Originally nominated for speedy deletion but that is generally not appropriate for hoax articles, which is what this appears to be. I find no sources whatsoever describing this film and as such assume that it does not in fact exist. Footnoted sources do not actual establish the existence of the film. Should be deleted as a hoax. Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced/hoax Agathoclea (talk) 08:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and then redirect to I'll give you my gun when you take it from my cold, dead hands. -Sean Curtin (talk) 08:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A probable hoax which is unsourced. asenine ^{say what?} 08:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect as Sean Curtin suggests. Apparently a hoax but it's a reasonable search term for someone looking for details of that speech. ~ mazca ^talk 12:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
G3 as hoax, no idea why the previous G3 was declined, hoaxes are generally speediable. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 13:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G3 has been changed to remove hoaxes from it explicitly. I believe the discussion was archived, so it should be in the most recent archive of WT:CSD. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For anyone who is interested, I believe the discussion to which you are referring is here. This article did not seem to be "blatant and obvious misinformation" (though I think it is misinformation) which is why the appropriate course seemed to be declining the speedy nom and taking it to AfD. Obviously in the end this article will not exist (having a redirect makes sense) but we generally err on the side of caution when it comes to speedying "hoax" articles.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as a reasonable search term, but I don't see any reason to delete the old versions. Doesn't WP:AfD#How to discuss an AfD ask people not to !vote redirect and delete? --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Normally ... but in the case of misinformation I don't think the history needs to be kept and recreating the page as a redirect after its being deleted seems logical. Agathoclea (talk) 20:03, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The license that Wikipedia operates under requires the history of contributions to be maintained, so you must not merge and delete articles. However, if none of the information from an article is actually being merged to the redirect target (as in this case it's all completely fictitious) there is no problem with deleting it then making a redirect. ~ mazca ^talk 22:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ASAP, but redirect to existing article. Almost did a redirect to the Charlton Heston article and would have redirected it per Sean Curtin had I done a search here for the term. Sorry, but I can't believe we're even considering whether or not to keep an untruth such as this. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hoax.--Berig (talk) 17:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:02, 12 May 2008 (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.