Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dusty Springfield's legacy

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 cuz Dusty was the coolest but OR forks about her are not. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dusty Springfield's legacy

Dusty Springfield's legacy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Essay on Dusty Springfield which does not appear to add anything significant to an already good article about her. Delete per no OR. Deadly∀ssassin 04:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• Trim, merge, and anchor-redirect any reliably sourced content to Dusty Springfield#Legacy. That section could afford a little more content, and this is a plausible search string and redirection will take readers to exactly where the information is. This is not to be interpreted as a keep, per the essay-like content, the duplication (sans sources) of much of the information in the Dusty Springfield article, and the WP:original research/synthesis concerns (although I can see the possibility of a WP:HEYMANN-like improvement if someone is willing to put effort in to restructure this as a valid sub-article of Dusty Springfield and reliably source the content). -- saberwyn 05:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
• Merge a substantially smaller and NPOV version to Dusty Springfield#Legacy. There's enough here to enhance that article, but this topic is undue weight for a separate article. --Dhartung | Talk 06:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete This seems more like a Dusty Springfield Trivia section than an article. Virtually nothing is cited. First sentence indicates this thing is lifted from a larger work. Existing Dusty article is very solid and exhaustively cited; trying to merge that article with this uncited list just because some list entries are interesting could weaken the existing article, and hardly seems worth the effort. Townlake (talk) 13:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:18, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
• Merge. The trivia most definitely needs to be culled, but notable commentary certainly warrants mention. I also could anticipate the Heymann standard being met at some point, though the title is a little weighty as it stands, I'd suggest a word a bit less POV implicatory than "legacy". WilliamH (talk) 17:12, 25 May 2008 (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.