Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fourthborn
Source: 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 was merge to Birth order. Rschen7754 02:33, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fourthborn
sources are 2 books, not scholarly. no evidence that these traits are established by research. we currently dont have lists of first, second or third born, so this is wholly nonnotable as a list. the throwaway line indicates this article is intended as an insult to a particular individual. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:52, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I tried cleaning this up a little bit, removing the sources that were pretty obviously unusable and properly listing the others. I'm going to abstain from voting, though.talk) 10:42, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge (however minimally) and redirect to birth order. Not enough content to stand alone, and the list is completely worthless unless there is sourced commentary on how being fourthborn specifically impacted any of those notable individuals. postdlf (talk) 16:06, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge (however minimally) and redirect to birth order. exactly per Postdlf. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:59, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge as above. valid search term, even if there is no content deemed mergeable.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 22:31, 8 September 2012 (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.