Deletion of Rumors and urban legends regarding Sesame Street

Comment: and '''merge''' verifiable information to appropriate articles. Northamerica's argument revolves around two things: that this information is not present elsewhere, and that there is sourcing that confers notability on the topic. I might agree with the first point, although that's not an argument for inclusion of this ''article.'' The information ''ought'' to be included in Wikipedia. It is verifiable, and it is also interesting! It should be included in relevant articles. Regarding the second point, none of those sources are actually about the ''topic'' of this article. They are about individual elements of the topic. There's a big difference between an article covering ''one'' such rumor/urban legend regarding Sesame Street and an article covering the ''topic of rumors and urban legends regarding Sesame Street,'' and  looks for the latter. Coverage of the ''topic'', directly. I really just don't see the purpose of having this as its own article, and I don't see the justification for it unless sourcing can be found that can establish the phenomenon of rumors about Sesame Street as being independently notable, as a topic, not as a list of examples of said rumors
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: merge wouldn't be appropriate as I'm not sure this material is approrpiate for inclusion in Wikipedia per  and .  Having references is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for inclusion of info, and there's not much I find here that merits being in the encyclopedia in any form
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:IINFO||WP:TRIVIA)

Comment: I have to agree with the nom here. This is an unnecessary content fork. While Sesame Street is obviously notable, that doesn't mean there needs to be a standalone article about the "rumors and legends regarding Sesame Street". Otherwise we could as well create standalone articles like "Rumors and legends about Barack Obama" and "Rumors and legends about Mitt Romney" , we will find plenty sources for it ;-). I think WP is not supposed to be a rumor mill, so any kind of articles named "Rumors about..." become questionable per . The Sesame Street article is 50kB size ,and this rumors content fork is 5kB size, so it is no problem at all to merge this into a section in the Sesame street article. While a redirect page with this name would not be needed, it is likely to be kept for its page history
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTGOSSIP)

Comment: Notability is the not the sole basis for inclusion. In this case we have material that really is not sufficient for a separate article. Claims about Bert and Ernie's sexuality can be included in the article on them, as they are already. Ditto to claims about Cookie Monster and the article on him. The stuff about the HIV muppet could be mentioned in connection with the South African show that appeared to spark the rumor. Rather than stacking all this material on to a separate article to make it merely an |indiscriminate collection of gossip, it makes more sense to include it in articles pertaining to the subjects mentioned in the rumors
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:INDISCRIMINATE)