Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Box office slump
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. Okiefromokla questions? 01:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Box office slump[edit]
- Box office slump (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
This article has no references, it documents a neologism, it's orphaned, it may contain original research, and fails WP:V. Tavix (talk) 15:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 17:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, or perhaps Merge into box office. Hardly a neologism, and a documented phenomenom [1]. PC78 (talk) 17:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or merge to box office. Agree that article is not sorced and so currently fails Wikipedia:V, but this can be easily cured as phenomenom is easily researched. Michael Q. Schmidt (talk) 19:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to box office. There's no need for a separate article documenting a particular instance of an economic slump. RayAYang (talk) 03:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to box office since there is no verifiable content worth merging. It would be great to have a developed article tracing the box office trends (ups and downs), but care should be taken not to make it too American-centric. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep standard, and not really part of "box office" but only a somewhat related topic. We do not delete for not being verified, just for not beingvrifiable. If refs can likely be found,its not a proper deletion. DGG (talk) 00:50, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, notable. Everyking (talk) 10:02, 4 August 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.