Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seal of Marysville, Washington

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 Marysville, Washington. –MuZemike 19:13, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seal of Marysville, Washington[edit]

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

Why does the "seal" (more like logo) of a city of 25,000 people in northwest Washington need its own article. I do not believe that this meets the WP:GNG. Admrboltz (talk) 18:08, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Marysville, Washington. This two-sentence item apparently does not need to be an article of its own. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:12, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:33, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:34, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Marysville, Washington, not significant enough for its own article. Dough 48 72 00:41, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've added what little content is here (basically, a description of the images already in the city article) to that article, along with the flag description. No need for a merger discussion on several talk pages. Mandsford 15:15, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - What is there to merge? -- Whpq (talk) 17:12, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing, anymore. It's a moot point, per Marysville, Washington#Symbols. Mandsford 18:40, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, what I meant was that even the description of the seal isn't worth merging and that's the only material in the article. but since you merged it, then we should redirect to provide an attribution history. -- Whpq (talk) 19:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any necessity for a redirect, and a lot of reasons against one. I don't know how many times I have to say "I've added it already". There's nothing important in the history of the article, and it's the unlikeliest of search terms. Redirecting articles like this just encourages people to create more "Seal of ____" and "Flag of _____" pages. Mandsford 13:47, 24 November 2010 (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.