Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Art Vandelay

From 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 of the debate was REDIRECT. Harro5 22:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Art Vandelay

Not notable enough for an article on the subject. Information already exists in George Costanza. ERcheck 03:53, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. An entire section on Art Vandelay already in the article George Costanza (it contains more comprehensive information). There has been a bit of an edit war already on this with previous redirections (x2) to George Constanza deleted and the article recreated. ERcheck 03:53, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. An article on a joke that one TV series character used on a single episode is the perfect example of fancruftiness. JoaoRicardotalk 03:58, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm newish here, but I wonder what the harm is if the name does redirect to George. Also I think the name was used more than once in the series. BabuBhatt 04:21, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
    • If you can verify the additional usage of the name "Art Vandelay", you can edit the George Costanza article's "Pseudonyms" section to include the appropriate information. ERcheck 04:29, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to George Costanza. This was a somewhat popular running gag throughout the series, as I recall, but there's really no need for a seperate article on it. A redirect is useful though. --W.marsh 04:35, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to George Costanza. Nothing to merge here. (ESkog)(Talk) 08:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  • weak keep. says here it was used in 9 episodes [1]. The term has become quite widespread outside of the show too with various companies, sites etc using the name - google results-- Astrokey44|talk 14:38, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect - it IS worth an article, but there is nothing in it at the moment which is even stub-worthy, so until such time as there is enough information for a stub it should be kept on the page already mentioned by other people Cynical 14:57, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect and merge until the section in George Costanza expands. Nothing wrong with creating a stub when there's no good place to put the information in another article, but that's not the case here. BTW, if you call my cell phone and I don't pick it up, the voice mail intro begins "You have reached Vandelay Industries..." Kurt Weber 17:42, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Important gag for most of the series. -- JJay 19:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to George Costanza. If and only if the section gets too big in that article then it's worth forking off. howcheng {chat} 22:58, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to George Constanze. Stifle 13:21, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and merge Art Vandelay info from George Costanza into it, removing duplicated information. Sunnan 15:53, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect Pepsidrinka 00:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
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.