Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Observer's 50 funniest

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 of the debate was Delete. There's no consensus to keep, but something of a split between a merge and a delete. There's not much to merge, and User:Irishpunktom has replaced the article with categorisation (see e.g. [1]). I can't close as a merge and delete because of GFDL issues. I shall therefore, with the new category scheme and the comments about not watering down the Observer article in mind, close as delete. That's not to say an interested editor can't add a mention to the Observer article, but honestly I don't see anything worth saving. kingboyk 11:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Observer's 50 funniest

This article seems completely pointless. At the moment, it's just a couple of links to a fairly old, obscure list, which anyone could find with a quick google search. I can't see how it could be improved either, beyond regurgitating the list, which would be pointless and copyright infringement. If people want to mention this list in the articles of the people who were in the list, why not just link to the list? Rather than linking to a couple of sentences about it. Sammysam 00:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Either Keep or Merge into The Observer – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 00:41, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with a possible merge. It's a short blurb to introduce a link to an external, arbitrary list. WP:NOT, NOT, NOT. The people on the list might be funny and notable but that's not the issue. Deizio 00:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the main article. Weatherman90 04:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into The Observer, or else delete. --Ter e nc e Ong 04:41, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Terence Ong. OhNo itsJamie ^Talk 05:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Two-plus years old list of then-contemporary comedic acts is not encyclopædic, compared to something like a list of Perrier Award winners & runners-up. (aeropagitica) 07:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unencyclopedic. Feezo (Talk) 09:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not encyclopaedic. Proto||type 09:56, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not encyclopedic. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 14:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge per above --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 16:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above -Oscar Arias 16:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and don't merge, we don't need to fill The Observer with random references to past features. -- Mithent 19:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Turn To Category - As it is it's nothing short of a link..make a category of this name linking the fifty?--Irishpunktom\^talk 00:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do what? Deizio 01:50, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I'll just do it! --Irishpunktom\^talk 10:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --MaNeMeBasat 08:38, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & expand. The Observer made an intelligent assessment. There's plenty of material there to write a decent article that could interest many wikipedians. Veej 13:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

or merge Veej 13:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I should probably support my own nom --Sammysam 15:41, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.