Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Margaret Nicholas

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 delete. It could not have been said any clearerer.  ;-) Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Margaret Nicholas

Unencyclopedaic, utterly biased. Possibly non-notable. Should be either expanded rapidly to be an article worth keeping, or deleted for recreation later when the subject becomes notable and/or more details are available about the person Firien § 10:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• Full rewrite, else delete. Seems to be author of some moderately-notable books from a real publisher, but current article is completely unacceptable. Though I feel the subject is notable enough for an article, having no article at all would be preferable to keeping the present text. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: what a mad article - this is a woman and we don't really know anything to say about her for her Wikipedia article! Like the voters above, I will reconsider this vote if the article gets a complete rewrite with some facts and sources. AndyJones 11:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment from rescuer / re first AFD

  I rescued this article from AfD first time round, and I said I would expand it. At the moment I am at WS5, and quite frankly, could jack the whole lot in within a second. Skip the rewrite, bin it, and I will do something better in a month or two, when I have more information to hand. Better to have a good page than a half baked lump of s**t which bares no resemblance to an encyclopedia article even after I have cleaned it up!!! My vote - "BIN IT! DELETE, REMOVE, INCINERATE!!! Can I say it any clearerer????' Thor Malmjursson 20:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• Deletethis is vanity not journalism, no point rewriting, needs citations, source otherwise very one sided.--Mr Maxim 20:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I prodded this article a while ago, and I stand by it. (Originally, its title was in all capitals, the worst possible Geogre's Law faux pas.) This article is unverified and possibly unverifiable. szyslak (t, c, e) 21:30, 25 September 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.