Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank Sinatra's recorded legacy
Tools
Actions
General
Print/export
In other projects
Appearance
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is the current revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 06:24, 4 February 2022 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.
Revision as of 06:24, 4 February 2022 by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12))
(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
- 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 keep. Articles which are obvious forks or subtopics are not candidates for deletion and should be dealt with through merge proposals. Non-admin closure by Skomorokh 00:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Frank Sinatra's recorded legacy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Forked content, this is all dealt with in Frank Sinatra. Fails WP:OR, WP:RS and WP:V. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 13:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Tenacious D Fan (talk) 13:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge notable additions to the topics covered back into Frank Sinatra, if any. tj9991 (talk | contribs) 16:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Like him or not, Sinatra's musical legacy is huge. The main Sinatra article tends to get quite big, having to handle his long music career, his film career, his political involvements, his alleged mob ties, etc. This is an eminently reasonable subject for split-out, per WP:Summary style. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This is a summary of what could become a perfectly appropriate discography. Everything here seems sufficiently important conentto be covered, and the argument for a split on the grounds of extent of material seems reasonable. DGG (talk) 08:58, 25 July 2008 (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.