Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Jimmy

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 of the debate was speedy keep as a bad nomination: gibberish on a talk page is certainly no reason to delete it. Further, deleting a talk page without deleting the article itself seems quite pointless. There are many talk pages on Wikipedia with bizzarre, irrelevant comments on them. The usual course of action is to either simply ignore them, or to be bold and archive/delete them if they add nothing to the discussion. Turnstep 12:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:St. Jimmy

All the text in this talk page is plain gibberish. Weirdy 05:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• I will NOT remove the text, for I will be banned for vandalism. Weirdy 05:35, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per {{db-nonsense}}. Was fooled into thinking this was an article. Of course keep--Fuhghettaboutit 05:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete for obvious reasons. Hang on, keep this talk page, unless there is some reason to delete the main article. The discussion doesn't make sense to me, even now I have the context, but I can see that at least some of it does actually relate to a question of interpretation that arises from the article. Just delete any text on the talk page that is totally nonsensical, which is probably about the second half of the page. Metamagician3000 08:41, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Let me guess. It does not make sense because it is not signed, there is a threat on the page and bad punctuation and spelling use. Weirdy 08:58, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't see any threat, except a threat to change the article unless a source can be found for the claim that a character depicted in the CD is a Christ figure. Otherwise, you have given reasons to delete a lot (most?) of the text, but not to delete the page itself. Once again it is a talk page for an article that is not in itself being requested for deletion. If it is full of illiterate, unsigned discussion etc., as it indeed is, there are other and quicker ways to deal with it. It doesn't fit the criteria for deletion of a page. When I originally started to support speedy deletion I didn't realise it was a talk page. Metamagician3000 11:43, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This talk page sucks. 220.233.30.154 09:47, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Every article can have a talk page, including this one. If what's on it is gibberish, delete the text. Unsigned comments are not exactly unusual on wikipedia. David Sneek 11:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per David Sneek. NoIdeaNick 14:40, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep what? Kotepho 15:57, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• Well, I can see that you are a new user. It is Speedy Delete, not Speedy Keep. We are voting to either keep or delete Talk:St. Jimmy . Weirdy 21:40, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Please avoid personal attacks. And "speedy keep" is a legitimate thing for him/her to say if s/he wants an admin to close this quickly on the ground that the nomination was seriously flawed in some way. Metamagician3000 23:37, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep' per David Sneek. --Terence Ong 16:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, let us see the next several votes before we really decide to keep. And, I will listen to David Sneek, but, for now, let us see the next several votes (DAMN IT STUPID SPACEBAR KEY!)Weirdy 21:35, 22 April 2006 (UTC).
• Keep, there is nothing inherently wrong with the Talk page (without endorsing anything anyone's posted on it - just delete irrelevant stuff). This should be on WP:MfD anyway? -- Mithent 22:02, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per David Sneek M1ss1ontomars2k4 00:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep, bizarre nom! Badgerpatrol 02:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment, this is a talk page and therefore not a valid nomination, so no "vote". If you don't like what's on a talk page, don't read it, but unless there are real attacks or other unwelcome stuff... one "threat" and some unsigned comments is nothing to get in a twist over. Deizio 11:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep No reason to delete talk page in this instance.--Cini 16:07, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I see no fault in this talk page. Trapper 05:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

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.