Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roba

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 The Problem Solverz. Consensus is to merge but there really isn't anything to merge, if anyone disagrees I would be happy to userfy it to them for merging. Also, this close does not prohibit the creation of a disambiguation page. J04n(talk page) 11:36, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Roba

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

This 7-year-old stub contains info that (if even considered notable) could be incorporated at The Problem Solverz. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:49, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:40, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:40, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to The Problem Solverz. Note that the article is not a 7-year-old stub, but rather a 2-day-old stub! It replaced a 7-year-old redirect. I suggest replacing the content of the article by a disambiguation page with links to The Problem Solverz and Jean Roba. --Edcolins (talk) 18:41, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Duly noted. :) IP editor(s) operating from 50.8.27.98 and 173.11.226.201 have been turning redirects into lackluster articles lately, for example at Neon Knome. Is an AfD warranted here? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think an AfD is warranted. If you are confident that the topic is not notable per se, you can just revert to the redirect and integrate any verifiable content into the main article. You can also propose a merger and start a discussion on the talk page to see why other contributors believe that the topic should have its own article. Perhaps that would be an appropriate way to proceed. I wonder what other contributors think about this... --Edcolins (talk) 20:26, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to The Problem Solverz Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:27, 1 May 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.