Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corwood Industries

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 redirect to Jandek. MBisanz ^talk 02:33, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Corwood Industries

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

Not distinguishable enough from Jandek to warrant a separate article. The article's text itself admits this. RadioKAOS – Talk to me, Billy 20:03, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for pretty much the same reason:

If a separate discography article is warranted, then it should be titled Jandek discography, with the current title redirecting to that. RadioKAOS – Talk to me, Billy 20:10, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As Jandek discography just redirects to Corwood Industries discography and has no other history, the Corwood discography page should be moved to Jandek discography, not deleted. Also it seems that Corwood Industries would be a reasonable redirect to Jandek. In other words, we don't have an AFD; we have a pretty straightforward editing task. postdlf (talk) 01:20, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This would also appear to me to be an obvious no-brainer. However, I notice that this article was created at the same time as Jandek in February 2003. Many in the Wikipedia community seem to be so eager to indulge those who believe in creating articles for the sake of creating articles, or who really believe that the world is thousands if not millions if not billions of islands unto themselves, that we now have before us an article which has effectively gone ignored and unchecked for over a decade. That sort of longevity may lead people to believe that there is a legitimate reason for it to exist, hence AFD is the most appropriate forum. RadioKAOS – Talk to me, Billy 23:27, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, redirect to Jandek. SethTisue (talk) 13:44, 12 April 2013 (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.