Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Looky looky men


 * 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   redirect to Hawker (trade). King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 21:34, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Looky looky men

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I do think that this can be merged with Hawker (trade) and a redirection created. I do not think it needs its own page. JetBlast (talk) 00:44, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Procedural Keep : If you want to discuss a merge, please follow the procedures described at WP:Merge. AfD is not the place to do this. In any event, though, I would probably object to such a merge, as the topic appears to be independently notable with enough information to justify a second article.  But I could be convinced otherwise; just start up the discussion on the talk pages and add the merge tags as per the merge instructions. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:07, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: We tried a basic redirect, but the original author reverted that, Sadads (talk) 13:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * As I said: you should have used the procedures discussed at WP:Merge. That means tagging both articles, and starting a discussion on the talk page of the target article.  The original bold redirect was fine, but was once was undone, if you want to keep the information but just change the article it's in, this is not the place to do it. However, since this is already getting comments, we can keep it here per WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY.  As such, I've struck out my original !vote and will add a new one at the bottom. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:40, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete and redirect per nom the topic isn't individually notable, and the term is used in a really limited fashion on the web and in reliable sources, Sadads (talk) 13:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Right now I'm on the fence about this one - the sourcing is there, but limited. It's borderline. If anyone can find a few more reliable sources, I might come all the way over to keep. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:54, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Article has sufficient sources to show that this group has a distinct identity from the general concept of hawkers, and thus can have a separate article (which, of course, should be linked in the broader article). Qwyrxian (talk) 00:40, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Wifione  Message 03:39, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Redirect - Does not seem to be a separate occupation than that covered by Hawker (trade). "Looky Looky Men" is a colloquialism for hawkers in a region. That this phrase appears in the press is neither here nor there, the encyclopedic occupation here is "hawker". There are many different synonyms for this, but we don't have forked pages for "vendor" or "street merchant" (etc.) just because that word appears in the press, eh? This should be a redirect to the already existing encyclopedic article; perhaps with merged content. Carrite (talk) 14:16, 25 January 2012 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 14:18, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect - Agree with Carrite. Agent 78787 (talk) 14:20, 25 January 2012 (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.