Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Little Cleo

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 speedy keep as a bad-faith nomination. It is clear that the nominator is a single-purpose account or sockpuppet, and the item in question appears to be notable. If an admin believes this should go forward, feel free to reopen it. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 03:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Little Cleo

Delete. Unencyclopaedic. DeleteLittleCleo 01:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I don't fish and have no idea if the Little Cleo is noteworthy or not, but I sure don't like the idea of single-purpose-user accounts for deletions such as the nominator here. If you think something should be deleted, nominate it under your primary account name. NawlinWiki 01:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep Notable product, widely available for over a quarter of a century, and named by Field and Stream as one of the 50 Greatest Lures of All Time. Reason this is a speedy keep instead of a regular keep is that this seems to be nominated by a sock (see nominator's user name). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep per starblind. (|-- UlTiMuS 01:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep Looks like notable product, nom looks like bad faith. Fan-1967 02:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep I am not sure about the notability of the product but the very act of creating a new account to nominate an article for deletion makes me question the faith of nom. --WinHunter ^(talk) 02:49, 25 August 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.