Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Rice

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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy keep, nomination withdrawn due to article improvement. Friday (talk) 05:36, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dan Rice

NN poppycockery. Delete --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:43, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'll be damned. Clean it up, wikify it, ad another source, and it's a keeper. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:30, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete as it's obviously patent nonsense. Ifnord 04:45, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete poppycock is a good word for this article. Reyk 04:48, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
• There've been some edits that seriously improved the article. To me it looks like a keeper now. Friday (talk) 05:03, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
• Dan Rice actually exists ... the original article contained factual information, but needed some cleanup and verification. ERcheck 05:20, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep- much improved. Reyk 05:23, 20 October 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.