Deletion of Heckling of comedians

Comment: per 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:INDISCRIMINATE)

Comment: per .  Content fork full of OR.  Redirect to Heckler might be appropriate (not Heckling, which is a disambig
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Snowball clause (WP:SNOW)

Comment: per . I was skeptic initially. The article basically looks like a list of examples, which is really bad. However at this stage it appears the article has some references. The topic enjoys a coverage by third party sources. Some even classify subtypes like heckling of woman comedians, see http://books.google.com/books?ei=9XX6TNnrHImgOsqQ5dQK&ct=result&id=8iPuAAAAMAAJ&dq=Women+and+laughter&q=heckling#search_anchor here, for instance. More sources are definitely would only improve the quality. There is a lot of room for improvement generally
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTE)

Comment: it should be presented as an encyclopaedic topic not a random list of heckles involving famous people. someone has said "For one thing, it is entertaining and this is no bad thing."  and  are not valid reasons
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:NOHARM||WP:ILIKEIT)

Comment: Merging into heckle might be sensible but mostly the topic just needs more work, per our |editing policy.  A good test of a topic's potential is to check Google scholar.  In this case, one immediately turns up http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v467/n7315/abs/467530a.html an article in the journal Nature (journal)|Nature.  Has this been considered yet?  Until a proper source search is made, the topic should remain open.  For one thing, it is entertaining and this is no bad thing.  I shall tag it for rescue so at least the ARS and its followers get an opportunity to read it
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Editing policy (WP:IMPERFECT)