Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Features of Guinness World Records Books
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
- 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 Merge to Guinness World Records. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-08 21:44Z
Features of Guinness World Records Books
- Features of Guinness World Records Books (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Appears to be nothing more than abandoned, unwikified list. Page has been unmaintained practically since its creation and is just a target for vandals now. RJASE1 06:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Rewrite and Merge to Guinness World Records, redundant to have it as independent article. Wooyi 06:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Prune and Merge with Guinness World Records. The article on the book is supposed to explain the content of the book, not read it to us. Flakeloaf 06:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge anything useful per above. The fact Guinness has added and abandoned categories over the years is a notable fact, but I don't really see a need for a separate article, especially one so incomplete; to be viable a survey of the books going back to the 1950s would have to be undertaken. 23skidoo 06:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Rewrite and Merge per Wooyi. Mathmo Talk 12:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete We're describing a World Records book here, which is itself a collection of information. Anyone see what's wrong here? Hobbeslover talk/contribs 19:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. Per WP:N and WP:V, only records that have a confirming independent source (in addition to the Guiness World Records should be merged into other articles. Guiness World Records as a whole has notability, but this doesn't mean that each record does individually. --Shirahadasha 21:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge as per Wooyi. It's indiscriminate and unmaintained on it's own, but fine as an inclusion. Whilding87 19:26, 5 February 2007 (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.