Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Foolish Guys ... to Confound the Wise

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 merge to Isaac Air Freight. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Foolish Guys ... to Confound the Wise[edit]

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

Album lack substantial, multiple RS coverage. Article has zero refs, and zero ELs. Tagged for lack of notability and sources for over 3 years. Epeefleche (talk) 21:47, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Snooze Ya Looze. Lom Konkreta (talk) 02:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The album, Fun in the Son' is of the same quality and must be handled in the samy way as the other two. Lom Konkreta (talk) 02:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Lom Konkreta (talk) 02:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~weak keep~~ merge/redirect The albums also lack any coverage in the wikipedia article beyond basic discogs info, so refs are not an issue here. May be merged into the author's page, but just as well kept separately, since wikipedia is not paper. Lom Konkreta (talk) 02:54, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure on what basis you are suggesting this could be a keep, even a weak one, given that it has zero refs and you have not indicated any substantial, multiple RS coverage. Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:00, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- On the basis of the possibility of merge as I explained, somewhat clumsily, above . I am changing my vote, to make my position clearer. Lom Konkreta (talk) 02:14, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hi. Please see my comment to Bearian below, on a fine point as to the (IMHO) preference of a redirect over a merge.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:37, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was unable to find coverage to pass WP:GNG. Till I Go Home (talk) 07:06, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ankit Maity ^TalkContribs 08:59, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as suggested. There's lots of links at Google, but nothing reliable that I can find. Bearian (talk) 01:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The text has been challenged. As it is cited and challenged, per WP:CHALLENGED it would appear to require inline citations. As it lacks them, a redirect would appear to be preferable to a merge of challenged, uncited material by recreating it (without inline citations) in a target article. Properly cited material could always be created at the target. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:35, 7 February 2012 (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.