Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kingfisher calendar model hunt

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 Kingfisher Calendar. Black Kite (talk) 00:19, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kingfisher calendar model hunt

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

Merge to Kingfisher Calendar. Sources used demonstrate no significant coverage of this show/competition (many don't even mention it) and, as you can see, merging this stub adds only two lines of text and a small table. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 15:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions 16:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 16:25, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pray, could anyone quote the exact reason for proposing the article for deletion per WP:DP? Isn't there a way to discuss mergers??? I would like to see a discussion here on the reasons for deleting the said article. And is it fair to first remove reliable and verficable sources from an article, and then add citation needed tags? What kind of game is this? Tinpisa (talk) 17:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Googling "Kingfisher calendar model hunt" yeilds 88,200 results on google web search and 4620 results on google images.Tinpisa (talk) 18:51, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Make it so number one. – This could have been handled with {{MergeFrom}} and {{MergeTo}} templates, or WP:BEBOLD. Regards, RJH (talk) 22:50, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article is notable on its own. The article could be expanded; then more sources could be added. The article is based on reliable, published sources. The number of sources quoted in an article should be sufficient to verify facts on the article. For this short article, the sources are sufficient. Inserting 100 sources of the same nature to verify the same fact is meaningless. However, for the sceptics, I can list any number of sources: 1,2,3,4, 5,6, 7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45 etc. etc. --Tinpisa (talk) 08:32, 12 February 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.