Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1970s Topps


 * 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   no consensus. No prejudice against a future Merge as discussed here, and which sounds like a sensible option to take to me. Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

1970s Topps

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

The information, often in expanded form, is repeated on pages for the individual years. See: 1970 Topps, 1971 Topps, 1972 Topps, 1973 Topps, 1974 Topps, 1975 Topps, 1976 Topps, 1977 Topps, 1978 Topps, and 1979 Topps. There is no reason to have this article and the other ten. The Almighty Bob (talk) 22:11, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Redundant to the pages named. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 22:13, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - per Ten Pound HammerDavid WS (contribs)  22:59, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Keep I chose not to make individual years (for the 70s not 80s/90s) because the pages would amount to stubs. The decade format would be a fair treatment. Besides, the nomination is made by a brand new user who just replaced edits made by a recently banned user. The nomination is retaliatory. Either way the decade format was the original and was only split up in an effort to include more photos. The use of photos was ok'd however rendering the need to split up the years pointless. The notability of individual years was an issue for 90s pages so I was told to combine them. I have since been able to expand the 90s but I definitely would not separate the 70s on account of minimal content and notability. This, by the way has already been through cabal, non free review, discussions et al so the decision has already been made to keep it. Libro0 (talk) 00:47, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

So individual articles appears to be the consensus. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep A possible merge has been proposed and should be discussed in the appropriate forum. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:38, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable subject. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete It is reduntant and the viable articles should not be merged into this one. This article is a mess and really does not contribute anything, while the individual articles seem to have more content. Your Radio Enemy (talk) 15:02, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Ten Pound Hammer said it all. Punched Judy (talk) 17:44, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Blocked indef Secret account 12:50, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete It makes no sense to have something that is just taken from a whole mess of other articles. This is quite messy and pooly laid out. Total Mench (talk) 06:11, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Blocked indef Secret account 12:50, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep/Merge sorry I don't consider this as reduntant, in fact all those 1970 Topps], 1971 Topps, etc forms should be merged into the article instead of viceversa. I don't see indiviual baseball card years notable in anyway. Secret account 12:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Also note that the nominator and the two comments above me, I just blocked indef as obvious socks of User:Baseball Card Guy, AFD should be closed if anything. Secret account 12:50, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you please provide evidence that those two users are obvious socks of Baseball Card Guy? Libro0 in the past has accused others he has disagreed with as sockpuppets and in the case with me not once, but twice (plus a still ongoing campaign of harassment), was disproven all because I disagreed with him over these silly baseball card articles. If anyone should be banned or at least have his behavior looked into it is Libro0. He has wasted enough of the community's time. Your Radio Enemy (talk) 15:21, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Requests for checkuser/Case/Baseball Card Guy, where five Baseball Card Guy socks were discovered and subsequently blocked. --Kralizec! (talk) 22:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep The Topps articles are in kind of a mess because of disruptions by Baseball Card Guy who was indef blocked a week ago. I don't know if decade or year articles is optimal, but of we let Libro0 and others work on it for a while without further disruptions such as this bad faith AfD nomination from a sock, it will be worked out eventually. --Apoc2400 (talk) 20:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment I agree with Apoc2400. I have tried to work on this article and am continuing research for more information with which I can expand it. For the time being I would like the article kept. I am entirely open to the possibility of subdiving provided enough notable content is found. Libro0 (talk) 20:39, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and discuss at relevant talk pages. Redundancy is not a valid reason for deletion. We have 1970s and 1970, 1971, ... 1979, as well as 20th century, and we don't delete any of those for "redundancy". Now there may be some merit to merging the year articles into the decade, or vice versa, to reducing the detail in the decade article and replacing it with links to the individual year articles; but neither of these requires deletion and so the discussion should be done somewhere else besides AfD. DHowell (talk) 03:01, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.