Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Billy Boys

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further 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 KEEP: 5k, 1d. Final vote discounted, though from registered user. Had been present only 3 days and although with a number of edits they were a series of rapid-fire minor non-show-preview edits to about 3 articles. -Splash 00:52, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Billy Boys

*Delete. Inflammatory, offensive and certainly not deserving of a WP article. Forbsey 20:10, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep I accept the points made below by Xoloz that 'offensive' 'inflammatory' are not suitable criteria for deletion. After expansion by PatGallacher I have withdrawn my vote on the grounds that it is both encyclopedic and notable despite personal reservations about the article's content. Appologies for the VFD tag, I guess I let me own personal viewpoint get in the way of what is notable and encyclopedic. Hopefully the article will be kept for the sake of WP. Forbsey 20:15, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I would not claim that the article is particularly polished even now, if you have reservations feel free to edit it. PatGallacher 11:06, 2005 July 17 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-notable. Gwk 20:11, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article has been cleaned up somewhat. Gwk 22:20, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - non-encyclopedic JoJan 20:24, 15 July 2005 (UTC) Keep - the expanded article has become encyclopedic. JoJan 07:59, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete why would anyone think a football chant is encyclopedic in its own right, sectarian or not? --Stevefarrell 23:07, 15 July 2005 (UTC) Keep Sectarian songs are a major issue in Scotland and Ireland, especially at football games. Since expansion the article is much more encyclopedic, and clearly shows it is much more than 'just a football chant'. --Stevefarrell 20:42, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Although this is certainly an unsavoury issue, it is encyclopedic. I have expanded the article slightly, I hope those who previously voted for deletion will re-read it. It is more than just a football chant, it has been widely sung over the decades. PatGallacher 23:53, 2005 July 15 (UTC)
• Delete not encyclopedic. JamesBurns 06:49, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
  • At the risk of stirring it a bit, looking at this user's talk page, they seem to have a history of casting controversial votes to delete articles (or sometimes include them). PatGallacher 11:06, 2005 July 17 (UTC)
• Keep It sounds encyclopedic to me, and 15000 Googles hits suggests so. If Forbsey is the nominator, I am not sure he stated a proper ground -- "offensive" and "inflammatory" are not reasons for deletion, and "being deserving" is a somewhat-POV way of calling something non-encyclopedic, if that is what was meant. Xoloz 16:43, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Expanded version appears encyclopedic. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs) 11:07, 17 July 2005 (UTC)}

Get rid of it!

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.