Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Too Many Secrets

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, Phrase already in Sneakers article. Avi 17:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable phrase from a movie. This could easily be covered in one sentence in the Sneakers article. No point to transwiki this to Wiktionary. —C.Fred (talk) 00:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with the Sneakers (film) article --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 00:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per above. SM247^{My Talk} 01:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per above. -- Librarianofages 02:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per above. --Starionwolf 03:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Sneakers (film). --Coredesat talk 04:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Sneakers (film). The one line of content is already covered, almost verbatium, in the middle of the plot section - no need to merge. Might as well keep the redirect around since it was a catchphrase associated with the movie at the time. Kuru ^talk 04:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. Too little information to be worth the time merging. Black-Velvet 08:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Black Velvet. JIP | Talk 11:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per above. — Hex (❝?!❞) 17:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete, Do Not Merge, Do Not Redirect. There's no evidence at all that this phrase is famous or in wide usage as the article claims. So no need for redirect. The phrase is already in the movie article. So no need for merge. It's not even a dicdef. Why not save the unsung and weary-for-home admin who closes this vote some time and effort? Bwithh 02:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Redirects are cheap, a redirect at the very least could hardly hurt WP. Redirects also have the bonus effect of deterring future re-creation of unnecessary articles, saving us all time here! --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 02:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, well a redirect as opposed to a delete would mean one of us non-janitorial types could close this out when the time is upon us, and the road weary admin could already be home... :) Of course there's not really any way to prove wide usage in this case, but hey, how many movie catch phrases have their own website? No real strong feelings on this one, other than the article can't stand on its own; redirect or delete is all good. Kuru ^talk 03:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Not sure the reason for this article. I think the line was sampled by a band named DisNet, but I no longer have the CD to check. Шизомби 03:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as above. - CNichols 00:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Note that of the 154,000 hits for "Too many secrets", about 700 also mention "sneakers". This is a common phrase, which should perhaps just be deleted rather than have confusion by redirect. —Centrx→talk • 22:23, 4 July 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.