Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Imaginary friend

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 was keep. I have imaginary friends. They're real people, I just like to imagine they're my friends. the wub "?!" 16:29, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Imaginary friend

This article is woefully junked. It is devoid of any encyclopedic worth at this point and serves only as a playground for rampant vandalism and attacks at religion and anyone's favorite 'make them an invisible friend' subject matter. ju66l3r 01:41, 14 October 2006 (UTC) The correct tools for the job have been given to me below. Thanks everyone. ju66l3r 16:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep, The topic is encyclopedic. There is plenty of information in this article. It can be improved. A poorly written article on an encyclopedic topic is not grounds for deletion. —Pengo talk · contribs 02:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep the Subject itself is somewhat notable, with movies and TV shows about them, and there are even books on the subject. There may be problems with vandalism, but that's not sufficient grounds for deletion. If you're concerned about that, I suggest seeing about it being protected. FrozenPurpleCube 02:23, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and Clean-up - a legitamate verifiable topic --T-rex 02:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is a medical condition for people with autism. This article should be classified and explained scientfically, though. Sr13 03:15, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, verifiable and significant subject. Gazpacho 03:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Mybe could do with some sources (*opens up google*), but the topic itself is well worth an article. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 08:03, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: As the proposer, I just want to make it clear that while I find the topic valid, I find the current text is so useless to what valid text on this topic should look like that deletion of the article is the first step to making it better in this case. In my mind I saw this akin to how a copyvio would act upon an article (delete everything and rebuild from anew), but maybe it would have been better just to do just that sans the AfD discussion. I don't see the current text as being any better than a blank page (and in many ways it's worse than if we had no article at all: weasel words, unsourced allegations, POV, and just plain jibberish). That is why I proposed it for deletion. ju66l3r 08:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup per per T-Rex.
  • Keep and cleanup per T-Rex.Matthuxtable 11:50, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup per T-Rex --ASDFGHJKL 12:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup - Yet the article sounds really wrong to me, I don't know why and I don't know how to fix it. Michaelas10 (T|C) 12:41, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and I've tagged it for rewrite. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 15:12, 14 October 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.