Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sylvia and Gerry Anderson (2nd nomination)


 * 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 Keep. Nom is banned. Merge at will. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 03:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Sylvia and Gerry Anderson

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

Articles for deletion/Sylvia and Gerry Anderson was supposed to have been merged a year ago, no one did it. No one cares and frankly, it's redundant. Bananaqueen (talk) 00:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment It seems Twinkle overwrote the old discussion; check the page history to find that. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 00:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Fixed. --Dhartung | Talk 04:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Seems to be a good article on a notable topic. It should be kept until it can be demonstrated that this material is better covered elsewhere. A supposed merge which does not, in fact retain the material, is not acceptable. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Convert to DAB page. It looks better covered to me - both Gerry Anderson and Sylvia Anderson contain entire paragraphs that are direct copies from the source article. I think someone managed to complete the merge, but couldn't decide where to redirect the page as is required by the GFDL. We can solve that problem by effectively redirecting to both with a DAB page. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 12:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge any remaining unique information and then delete the duo article. Both people are independently notable and therefore anyone looking for information on their collaborative works will search for either Gerry or Sylvia. There's no need for a duet article. 23skidoo (talk) 14:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect: I concur with the above: this is one iteration of a name, and not the most likely search term.  Therefore, this should be a redirect, and there should be a settled location (e.g. the production company) other than a combining term.  Utgard Loki (talk) 14:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Close nom has been blocked as a sockpuppet for disruptive and bad-faith noms. DarkAudit (talk) 20:47, 14 March 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.