Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eminem timeline

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 delete. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eminem timeline

Fancruft that does not warrant its own article because everything is sufficiently covered in the Eminem article. Metros232 11:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. PJM 11:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Vizjim 11:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per nom, utterly redundant. Paddles 12:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• I agree that the timeline is unnecessary, and the article should be deleted or (if there are any differences at all) merged back into Eminem, but this is hardly a speedy delete by any means. I'm not sure that it warrants the label "fancruft", either; someone put this article together in good faith, and there's no call to go insulting him. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 13:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

  "Fancruft" doesn't mean articles written with malicious intent, it just means things that are only of interest to people who are already fans and probably already know the content. Most fancruft is written in good faith by people who just don't realize how narrow their subculture/fandom is. I wouldn't necessarily call this cruft, but it is duplicitious with Eminem's main article. Delete — AKADriver ☎ 14:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

  Once upon a time, I'd have agreed with you there. But what the speaker meant tends to be unimportant when it comes to insulting words; the speaker's targets tend to get upset regardless. I don't doubt Metros232 (or anyone else who uses the phrase) intended any offence, because back when I was throwing it about with gay abandon I didn't mean to offend anyone either; but offence is, nonetheless, the end result. We should try to respect each others' feelings whenever possible. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 14:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - per nom, unnessarry --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 15:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as Unencyclopædic. Anything that isn't mentioned in Eminem can be merged if required.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  18:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - unnecessary; adds nothing to our knowledge. Richardcavell 00:45, 19 May 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.