Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vile Pervert: The Musical

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 Jonathan King. Note that merging can be done selectively. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:54, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vile Pervert: The Musical[edit]

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

read the guides and this meets all the requirements for: Article content does not determine notability Dave006 (talk) 11:55, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 January 8. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 12:10, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As this is actually the first AFD for this article, I corrected the title, various links, and moved from the original title to this one. The redirect from the original title remains as a landmark for now. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 13:37, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Jonathan King. I looked for sources and added some to the article, but I could only find one properly in-depth article, from the Telegraph, and bits in other articles, which isn't quite enough for this to be independently notable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:05, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:46, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:21, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak redirect to Jonathan_King#Creative_output. There is coverage, but much of it is either brief or it's more about the conviction than it is about the film. I can see this going either way, but unless someone can dig up a few more things I would have to say that this should redirect to King's article. I did clean it up a little and added a source from a newspaper that may or may not be usable, but I think it needs more than what we currently have. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:46, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - seems perfectly valid to retain article unless of course there is an agenda other than notability. 62.212.112.80 (talk) 06:46, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment its not notable at all, needs deleting. See JK is using a sock to fight his causes again with 62.212.112.80 Dave006 (talk) 09:18, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as proposed by User:Colapeninsula and User:Tokyogirl79. Certainly deserving of a mention in the context of King's overall life and career, but minimal coverage does not justify separate article. The same arguments apply for The Pink Marble Egg, where there seems to be a deletion template, but no link other than to this AFD. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:53, 15 January 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.