Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beethoven's liver


 * 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 Ludwig van Beethoven. Merge away! :) Please consider discussing merge considerations on the talk pages per WP:MERGE. Thank you! SarahStierch (talk) 04:00, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Beethoven's liver

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is proposed for merging, yes, but simply put I don't think that it's all that notable, and I don't think that it should have either its own article or space in the main article. I daresay that the principle of "notability is not inherited" does come into play here; if this was anyone else's liver, we wouldn't bat an eye at deleting the article as is.  S ven M anguard  Wha?  20:44, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge the single notable fact to Ludwig van Beethoven. Kitfoxxe (talk) 21:07, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  Jinkinson   talk to me   What did he do now?  21:17, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - I'm not seeing why on earth this should be merged; it's utterly unencyclopedic and is basically a joke article. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 21:35, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. There's nothing notable about Coren's article, nor is there a source that supports the claim that the liver is still around. This isn't Albert Einstein's brain. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:29, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - Clearly a joke article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Athn (talk • contribs) 00:08, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete, but a move to WP:BJAODN is extremely tempting. De Guerre (talk) 04:21, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge to either Ludwig van Beethoven or perhaps Death of Ludwig van Beethoven, but only after screening for hoax or humorous content. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:17, 20 December 2013 (UTC)s
 * Merge, as I suggested on the talk page. I created this article to show another editor that it is not difficult to create a well-sourced article stub meeting WP:V, WP:N and WP:RS (although others dispute the WP:N), and I deliberately overdid the "notables" etc in the text which was labouring the point, I admit. In that sense I was pushing my luck a bit and expected it to end up here, but I didn't write it as a "joke" article, more a demonstration one; I've not invented facts (though the one I marked as CN I can't verify at the moment) and it is in encyclopaedic style. I think the fact that a respected pathologist (Madden) wrote about it on Beethoven's 200th anniversary as a rather bizarre homage would tend to indicate that at least at that time it was still around for his examination... I think the J. Alc J. says where it resides, but that is subscription only (an archive of the article used to be available on the Internet without subscription). Si Trew (talk) 16:59, 23 December 2013 (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.