Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/H. B. Gilmour and Randi Reisfeld

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 delete. Courcelles 22:51, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

H. B. Gilmour and Randi Reisfeld

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completely unnecessary--doesn't disambiguate anything. PROD was denied. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:41, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Useless "disambiguation" page. North8000 (talk) 12:07, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:18, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete': Wrong use of a disambiguation page. Joe Chill (talk) 12:35, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't disambiguate anything - Whpq (talk) 14:38, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on two grounds:
1. Deletion is an unacceptable solution in light of two main-namespace titles that have presumably become, during the last 54% of WP's existence, targets of numerous external links.
2. My perfunctory edit, moments ago, has rendered the page from a nominal Dab into a nominal Subject index article (that already preserves the validity of external links) and the germ of a better SIA which could grow into an article, drawing on reviews and bios, on the literary collaboration between two important children's authors. No argument for deletion that has been offered is applicable to the improved page.

--Jerzy•t 00:51, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response What would this article be? There is already a (short, mostly unsourced) article on one of the duo and a redlink for the other. Let's say that in a perfect world, we have well-sourced and thorough articles on both: why would we need this page...? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:57, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In theory these two could be the next Gilbert and Sullivan.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 11:30, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In theory these two could be the next Gilbert and Sullivan, but see WP:CRYSTAL. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:05, 6 September 2011 (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.