Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World's Got Talent

From 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 merge to Got Talent. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010(talk) 15:40, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

World's Got Talent[edit]

World's Got Talent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only a proposed show. Simon Cowell has put the plans on indefinite hiatus, so it's highly doubtful the show will be launched. The article is mostly unreferenced, and there's not much more information to find. I don't think this merits a standalone article. I would suggest merging its content with Got Talent. Heymid (contribs) 15:10, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to say this but keep (or delete - not merge). If people search on World's got Talent then they would probably prefer not to be directed to some point on another page. Article is referenced. Who knows it may grow into something big and if this is the last we hear from it, we can move it later. Gregkaye (talk) 18:51, 22 June 2014 (UTC) oh yes, visiting editors of the page can check WP:REFERENCE and WP:NOTABILITY[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Got Talent until more realization about the show is made. It is a reasonable search term, but I agree until that there's actually plans to go forward it doesn't need an article. --MASEM (t) 00:41, 23 June 2014 (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.