Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of awards and nominations received by John Gielgud

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 John Gielgud, roles and awards. Sandstein 16:17, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of awards and nominations received by John Gielgud[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A duplicate of material in the existing featured list article John Gielgud, roles and awards. Suggest replace with redirect to the latter. - Smerus (talk) 06:09, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:44, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:45, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Entirely concur with Smerus. Best to keep the stats together and get rid of the superflous spin-off page. Tim riley talk 09:03, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you two, must be friends, but Hello, User talk:Smerus I saw your message regarding, Proposed deletion of List of awards and nominations received by John Gielgud, and instead of deleting the page, why not simply remove awards content from John Gielgud roles and awards? You could rename that page, "John Gielgud on screen and stage". Given Gielgud's extensive acting credits and award nominations it makes sense to devote two separate articles which is the norm. I feel like this would be a simple and constructive solution rather than deleting the article. The awards content featured in "roles and awards" is so crammed in there at the bottom, and it's hard to for the reader to follow. The "List of..." article gives the viewer and easy to read, comprehensible list. The One I Left (talk) 12:29, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I try not to guess about the nature of other editors, nor to let that influence my comments. I follow User:Tim riley's talkpage, and saw there your interesting comments, in an exchange which you initiated, which led me to inspect the two pages concerned, of which otherwise I would have had no knowledge. If you wished to split the page John Gielgud, roles and awards, you could have suggested that on that article's talk page and obtained a consensus. Instead, without seeking any consensus, you have chosen to create what is, in my opinion correctly, described above as a 'superfluous spin-off'; and I have chosen to recommend its deletion. Best, --Smerus (talk) 12:43, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You spent more time defending your relationship with Tim Riley then defending your actual position. Anyway, I truly don't understand how you can look at both pages, and think that the crammed hard to read section at the bottom of his extensive credits in stage, film, and television is superior to the article "List of awards...". "superfluous spin-off" only applies if you keep that inscrutable chart at the bottom of his "roles and awards" page. I worked in good faith, I truly didn't think people were happy with what is there now. I guess knowing how strongly you feel about it now, I wish I had done things differently, but regardless we are discussing it now. The simple and best solution is to just remove the little chart at the bottom of "roles and awards". Why delete a perfectly thorough, clean, easy to read article for viewers that is "List of awards..."? The One I Left (talk) 13:23, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What an unpleasant post, implying improper collusion! If two people think your proposed change a rotten idea, please do not malign their motives. I see you have moved on to attempt to rewrite the Olivier article to your own satisfaction. Please don't park your tanks on people's lawns like that. Tim riley talk 15:06, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not here for speculation and did not malign any motives. Rather defensive chap aren't you? And "rotten idea"? Look at Laurence Olivier article, does he not have two separate articles for awards and roles? Aha! The One I Left (talk) 15:20, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I accept your assertion of good faith. I support deletion of the superfluous article. Tim riley talk 15:23, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You aren't making strong arguments, or really any arguments other than "rotten idea" and "superfluous". The awards section as is combined with the extensive acting credits, is hard for the casual viewer to easily comprehend. The "List of..." is crisp, and clean cut, and easy for the viewer to look and go "oh there are all his Academy Award nominations" or "I wonder how many Primetime Emmy Awards was he nominated for?" It just simply is the norm to have another article like Laurence Olivier has, given the amount of awards they have received. The One I Left (talk) 15:28, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So you keep saying. Others disagree. Wikipedia works by consensus, not diktat. Let us see with whom other editors concur. Tim riley talk 15:42, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to John Gielgud, roles and awards. This is a peculiar case procedurally, but I'm seeing the following: 1) The awards article was split recently from the main one, without discussion, 2) The proposed split would require a change in scope and in title for the main article, 3) Changing another article's scope and title is beyond AfD's power, and 4) Unless and until the main article's scope and title are changed, this article is redundant and must be redirected. If you want to separate the roles from the awards, the proper way to do that would be to start a discussion on the article's talk page, following these directions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:37, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Correct that sums it up. I made a good faith decision to separate the articles seeing no harm in it myself thinking it was a mistake anyway. I didn't realize there was passion for the awards to be lumped into https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_awards_and_nominations_received_by_John_Gielgud&action=edit&section=1the roles article. Renaming the article from "roles and awards" to "on stage and screen", and removing awards content from that article seem like a simple solution. I thought we could just make a decision here in regards to separation of two articles instead of having the lengthy process of deleting a page that might be restored anyway.The One I Left (talk) 11:16, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So, then, TOIl, you agree that the article be deleted? Just to be clear - because, if so, and there are no further disagreements, we can move immediately I think to make it a redirect, as I originally proposed.--Smerus (talk) 15:25, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Re-read what I wrote, I’m making the case for the simple solution is to remove the awards content from “roles and awards” and just rename that article. Keep my article where it is. It’s fully sourced, and a clear readable look at his awards. I never agreed to deletion of the article, you need to read carefully.The One I Left (talk) 17:28, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, you don't therefore maintain that User:Extraordinary Writ is correct, even though he is clearly in favour of making your article a redirect, and even though you wrote of his comment, "correct, that sums it up."--Smerus (talk) 18:00, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agreed with his general summary, as well as “Unless and until the main article's scope and title are changed, this article is redundant and must be redirected”. I agree that the “roles and awards” article should be changed to thus making “List of awards” non redundant”The One I Left (talk) 18:53, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, why hve you not started a formal WP:PROSPLIT process, as recommended by User talk:Extraordinary Writ? --Smerus (talk) 11:33, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did, you even commented on it. You and Riley were the only ones who did. The One I Left (talk) 12:26, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The One I Left, you have not done so. You perhaps need to comprehend that assertion is not the same as performance. You started a talk header, but this was not in accordance with the WP:PROSPLIT procedure to which User talk:Extraordinary Writ referred you, and therefore will have no effect on this discussion. If you seriously wish this matter to proceed, then you should commence the WP:PROSPLIT process; the instructions for how to do this are very clear on the PROSPLIT page. If you do not do so, then the seriousness of your intent will be evaluated accordingly.--Smerus (talk) 12:49, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An official proposal has been added.The One I Left (talk) 12:58, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, The One I Left, I remind you that assertion is not the same as performance. Being a careful reader is an essential part of being a good Wikipedia editor. You have completed step 1 of the PROSPLIT procedure, but omitted step 2. As you seem to have a problem here, I set out for your benefit Step 2 in full (which I invite you to check on the PROSPLIT page):

Step 2: Add notice

Use {{split}} to notify users of the proposed split. On the article (not the talkpage) add {{split|'''Article 1'''|date=May 2024}} or {{split|'''Article 1'''|'''Article 2'''|...|date=May 2024}}. This template adds a box to notify users about the split. If the new page name is unknown, use {{split}} by itself with no parameters.

I trust you will find this of assistance.--Smerus (talk) 14:30, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have taken issue with the Proposal, what is wrong now? I have never done this before and trying in good faith. The One I Left (talk) 15:09, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As above, I can't see any reason to retain this superfluous article. The history of muddle and high-handedness hasn't helped, but the main point is that the article needlessly duplicates an established and better article. Tim riley talk 15:42, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, "superfluous", and "better" are subjective vague adjectives. You surely agree that Laurence Olivier should have two separate articles correct? or do you disagree? The One I Left (talk) 15:44, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I disagree. For the umpteenth time: we have one good article with all the stats in. Splitting it is idiotic. I realise everybody but you is out of step, but that's the way it is. Tim riley talk 15:55, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We haven't had a proper debate or discussion, it's just been you and one other person. You keep repeating the same unimpressive and unmoving statement. Should Olivier have to suffer both awards and roles in one argument? No? Why does Gielgud have to? The One I Left (talk) 16:12, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. There is no reason to make two list articles for the same person, and force readers to go to more than one place, when one list article contains all of this information and has very clear headings and is easy to navigate. Make the new article a redirect. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:15, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, which articles are you referring to? The One I Left (talk) 17:37, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am perplexed by The One I Left's inability to stick to the point. Please refresh your memory by looking at the header of this discussion. It would be helpful to refrain from dragging in references to articles about other actors. Let us concentrate on the present point. Tim riley talk 18:50, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am constantly perplexed by Riley’s attachment to an incomprehensible awards chart. The Olivier article illustrates the point I am making.The One I Left (talk) 19:29, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you persist in addressing me by the hostile "Riley", may I address you as "One-Eye"? Tim riley talk 19:46, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - for the reasons outlined here, and on the John Gielgud, roles and awards Talkpage. I would also ask that User:The One I Left drops the personal attacks. They’re unnecessary, uncollegiate and inappropriate. KJP1 (talk) 21:38, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What personal attacks have I made? lol. I'm maintaining my position, while trying to understand others. I'm genuinely curious as to what others think, but I just keep getting vague adjectives, like "rotten". I've remained in good faith. The One I Left (talk) 00:04, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. As all have outlined above, this is duplicate content to the page that deals with Gielgud's 'career stats' page (for want of a better term). Why make people visit so many pages for information about Gielgud? Keep it on the one page. - the editor formerly known as SchroCat, editing as 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:5CAD:D89E:6ACF:3A3F (talk) 08:08, 5 July 2021 (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.