Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Lubrano (2nd nomination)

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 speedy keep. There is no such thing as "delete and merge", people. Our copyright licences do not permit it. Merger is a form of keep. Read our Project:Guide to deletion. Vic49, stop renominating this article when the outcome that you want is not deletion and doesn't involve administrators using the deletion tool in any way. If you want an editorial action enacted after your previous nomination, use your own edit tools yourself, and use the article's talk page. AFD is not a club to beat other people with into doing something that you are perfectly capable of doing but unwilling to actually do yourself. Uncle G (talk) 13:06, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Lubrano

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

Lubrano is not a notable criminal and does not pass WP:CRIME. Lubrano should not be the subject of his own article. Information about Lubrano and his crimes could be added to the List of Lucchese crime family mobsters article. Vic49 (talk) 23:26, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Vic49 (talk) 23:31, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Vic49 (talk) 23:31, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't this actually be some sort of merge discussion? --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 00:05, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Its going to be discussed here if the article should be deleted, merged or kept. I suggest that article be deleted and the information about Lubrano be merged into the above article.--Vic49 (talk) 00:10, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge per nom --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:18, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per WP:KEEP #1: all contributions including the proposer have argued for a merge. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:08, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge per nom Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:03, 6 December 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.