Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lady Caroline Faber

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 No consensus - default to keep 11 delete/ 3 redirect - Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 22:33, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lady Caroline Faber

NN, D ComCat 02:27, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Redirect malformed afd Dlyons493 Talk 08:14, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Not a valid AFD vote, discounted by closing admin. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 22:27, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Wikipedia is not a court of law. In the justice system, a clearly guilty person might get off on a technicality because the proper procedures have not been followed. In Wikipedia, a bad article does not escape deletion just because the AfD nomination was "malformed", whatever that means. My vote is delete. Reyk 23:25, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, family tree entry (said like this to avoid that 'g'-word I constantly misspell) - Mgm|^(talk) 10:50, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Genealogy. No claims of accomplishments (except birth, marriage, and fecundity). Geogre 10:53, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Genealogy. -EnSamulili 11:15, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. I just found this article yesterday and added some content. Since it is not long and is unlikely for expansion, perhaps it should be added to a "Marriage and descedants" section on the article about her father? Her two siblings have their own articles. See: Maurice Macmillan and Lady Catherine Macmillan User:Dimadick
• Changed my mind. Redirect now Dimadick merged it in an appropriate place at Harold Macmillan. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:49, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or redirect; a person with no particular accomplishments.PaddyBriggs 11:56, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Genealogy. Carina22 12:42, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Malformed AFD. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:33, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  • No WP:POINT, please. Geogre 15:31, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
    • There's no disruption in raising the bar. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:56, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Indeed, there is. If you prevent deliberation of an article along the lines of the deletion guideline, you are preventing the functioning of the AfD process, which makes your actions disruptive. If you are considering the article and believe that it should be kept, that's fine. If you are just trying to war with another editor, that is wrong. Geogre 20:39, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Not a valid AFD vote, discounted by closing admin. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 22:25, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect per Mgm — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 14:57, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect per Mgm faling that Delete --Jaranda(^{watz sup}) 18:09, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, she fails WP:BIO, however this is also a malinformed AFD.Gateman1997 22:10, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Preaky 14:15, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per the numerous reasons provided at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jerome Napoleon Charles Bonaparte and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Louise-Eugénie Bonaparte, both of which were deleted by consensus. → Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 12:23, 21 November 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.