Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KevJumba videography

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. Davewild (talk) 18:21, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KevJumba videography

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

This lengthy trivial article serves no purpose in the bio of KevJumba. This is not a notable article split, and see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nigahiga videography. 117Avenue (talk) 05:26, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 July 4. Snotbot t • c » 05:38, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Totally inappropriate--and I would in this case not merge it back, as I agree it's trivial. The detailed article on the individual would appear to me overextended in any case. Personally, even were these formally published material, I would regard separate discographies as appropriate only for major figures. DGG ( talk ) 06:03, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely trivial. I'm not going to say that the main article's subject isn't notable, but he certainly isn't notable enough to have a separate videography article, especially when said article is nothing but a list. Sleddog116 (talk) 15:22, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How about merging this with the article KevJumba, which already exists as a separate article in Wikipedia? ACEOREVIVED (talk) 19:02, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. I agree with DGG that it is excessive and trivial detail which should not be merged to the main article. JohnCD (talk) 12:00, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This does not warrant a stand-alone article, and there is nothing merge-able - none of these videos have a stand-alone article (or would warrant one) PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:39, 6 July 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.