Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of regular mini-sections in Private Eye


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Consensus isn't going to emerge to delete this. A merger discussion does not require continued AfD. Please use the Talk. Star  Mississippi  14:28, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

List of regular mini-sections in Private Eye

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Non-notable fancruft list. Could very lightly merge into the parent but doesn’t need to exist separately. Dronebogus (talk) 07:52, 10 August 2023 (UTC) Keep and clean up or merge per nominator. Not sure why we're at deletion? H i ding T 21:27, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Popular culture, Lists,  and United Kingdom. Dronebogus (talk) 07:52, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Only two of these things listed have their own articles, Colemanballs and The Luvvies.  D r e a m Focus  08:12, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Hey, hope you are well! H i ding T 21:28, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unsourced WP:FANCRUFT. Anything remotely notable may be able to be merged to Private Eye. Ajf773 (talk) 09:06, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:01, 10 August 2023 (UTC)


 * That… isn’t an argument? Dronebogus (talk) 12:35, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * No but it is policy. You've nominated an article for deletion but noted it could be merged. Per policy you shouldn't therefore nominate it for deletion, you should merge it, so we don't need to be here and there is no argument. Best wishes, H i ding T 20:05, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * No, I’m saying it could be partially merged, but I’m not sure if it should. Different thing than “this should be merged but I’m sending it to AfD” Dronebogus (talk) 22:47, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Interesting you're not sure it should be merged but you're sure it should be deleted, yet you've suggested it could be merged. Begs the question as to why you haven't tried a merge to see if it works, for example. Which is in line with editing policy and best practise on Wikipedia. H i ding T 11:12, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I’m not sure it should be deleted either. It could be deleted and merged (that is, deleted without redirecting because a redirect is implausible). There’s also WP:MADEUP concerns (is a “mini-section” even a real thing or just something an editor coined out of convenience?) Dronebogus (talk) 11:48, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
 * FYI, you can't delete and merge. Because of the license you have to preserve the edit history. Might be worth familiarising yourself with key policies on Wikipedia. Also not clear why you say a redirect is implausible. I'm also not clear why we're at afd on this one when there are alternatives that haven't been pursued. Wikipedia is losing too many articles and editors because to me it feels like there's a trend towards listing problems for deletion rather than fixing them, and the low volume of debate around potential is undermining the purpose of the site. Anyways, I think that's my last word on the subject, the argument seems to be circular. I'm still not clear why we're at AFD and in three responses the nominator has failed to convince me they know why either, which is worrisome to me. There are better fixes available here than deletion, that's the thrust of my argument and I don't see it changing. Peace and best wishes, H i ding T 05:26, 13 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Merge back to the main article. Sources almost certainly exist for all of those sections, but I don't see the point in a secondary article, the primary one doesn't have size concerns. Black Kite (talk) 12:27, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per concurrent discussions at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, Articles for deletion/Prime Minister parodies (Private Eye) and Articles for deletion/Recurring jokes in Private Eye. A merge is not a great outcome from this AfD given the recent history here, and should instead be discussed on relevant talk pages. &mdash;siro&chi;o 08:20, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete – no coverage of these as a group is cited in the article or has been identified here, and I haven't been able to find any such coverage. I don't see anything worth merging here – all of the content is too far down in the weeds to be worthwhile in any encyclopaedia article. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 06:33, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep Fancruft involves trivial stuff, this is Private Eye, one of the most important magazines in the UK, and this article summarises their most popular and significant articles. This article should be kept on notability grounds alone doktorb wordsdeeds 23:02, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep As so many other cases this is a blatant case of an article needing cleanup and effort, not deletion. Sadly too many people see AFD as a form of cleanup, which it is not supposed to be.★Trekker (talk) 18:04, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep, a potential merge shouldn't be discussed at AfD, and I don't think that a compelling argument for deletion has been made anywhere. The fact that the nominator is now CBANned from XfD is not strictly relevant, especially since the concerns raised about their behaviour were not primarily about bad-faith nominations. Actualcpscmscrutinize, talk 18:33, 17 August 2023 (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.