Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Berlin Trilogy

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 keep. Mailer Diablo 00:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Page duplicates info that's already written in David Bowie, and doesn't provide anything additional. It doesn't serve as a source of information for the albums, either, since they each have their own page. fuzzy510 01:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The 10,000+ hits for "Berlin Trilogy" +Bowie suggests that this is indeed a common way to refer to these albums. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Tend to agree there is little unique on this page however it is such a common moniker that I think it's reasonable to leave it. If duplication worries people then given the size of the David Bowie article I'd be more inclined to remove bits from there than delete this. Cheers, Ian Rose 02:03, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep I think the term is notable enough to warrant its own article (but barely), and while it doesn't really matter for the deletion vote, the paragraph that makes up the article is very well-written. -- Kicking222 02:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Ian Rose. If it's so notable, then give it a whole article, move all the stuff about it from the David Bowie article, and replace with a brief glossing. -- stubblyhead | ^T/_c 02:44, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Bowie. Dominick ^(TALK) 02:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment It would be complete in the same state as a section to David Bowie Dominick ^(TALK) 13:54, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I would say merge, but David Bowie is already on the longish side at 51k. Seems like a logical break point for a sub article with some solid content. Kuru ^talk 03:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Bowie Feinstein 03:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as it provides a legitimate link between the 3 albums Kevin 06:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I agree with Starblind. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Either merge or redirect as per Ian Rose.--HubHikari 11:36, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Kuru and Ian Rose (who didn't say either merge or redirect). · rodii · 12:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand if possible. Some of the main article info could go into it. Tyrenius 16:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Like Kuru said, Bowie is a little long and this has a good tie. --Supercoop 19:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, agreeing with Starblind. Yamaguchi先生 22:26, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand - could become decent adjunct to the already long Bowie article, and easier to link to related topics like Brian Eno, Robert Fripp, etc. Term is widely used name for this trio of albums. Grutness...wha? 04:43, 20 May 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.