Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Punky Brewster
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 of the debate was speedy keep --Angr/tɔk tə mi 11:45, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Punky Brewster
No educational value. It does not fit into an encyclopedia. (unsigned by User:152.163.101.10.)
- Completeing mal=formed nomination. looks like a probable speedy-keep to me. DES (talk) 06:52, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
- Speedy keep. Sorry DESiegel, but I feel that it is wrong for us to carry out an anonymous troll's dirty work like this. If it is a matter of formality to do this, then let's Wikipedia:Ignore all rules and shut this nomination down. {edit} 06:56, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
- I disagee. A speedy keep (which this is obviouly headed for) doesn't take long, and preserved a record for future reference. I don't approve of citign WP:IAR to avoid normal procedure -- indeed I am convinced that anyoen citing it for such a purpose thereby demonstrates a weak case. Besides, this may not have been trolling, but a person who honestly doesn't belive that such articles belong here. A reasonable defense of such a postion could IMO be made, although it would change the nature of wikipedia soemwhat, and i wouldn't support it. But a relatively new user may not fully understand the nature of wikipedia. in such a case, seeing the response is more likely to bbe educational than having the nom simply vanish, IMO. DES (talk) 07:07, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
- Then we agree to disagree. This is not a probable speedy keep, it's a definite and no-questions-asked speedy keep which picks up over 220,000 hits on Google still today. In light of the recent rash of Three's Company related noms, this is almost certainly a bad faith listing. {edit} 08:00, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
- This guy's been nominating TV shows for a while now and every single one has been speedy keeped. Being a new user is one thing, but this guy should have learnt by now. --Last Malthusian 11:32, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
- I disagee. A speedy keep (which this is obviouly headed for) doesn't take long, and preserved a record for future reference. I don't approve of citign WP:IAR to avoid normal procedure -- indeed I am convinced that anyoen citing it for such a purpose thereby demonstrates a weak case. Besides, this may not have been trolling, but a person who honestly doesn't belive that such articles belong here. A reasonable defense of such a postion could IMO be made, although it would change the nature of wikipedia soemwhat, and i wouldn't support it. But a relatively new user may not fully understand the nature of wikipedia. in such a case, seeing the response is more likely to bbe educational than having the nom simply vanish, IMO. DES (talk) 07:07, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
- Speedy keep and ban these users for making idiotic AfD nominations. — JIP | Talk 06:57, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
- Speedy keep and find out why nominator keeps submitting bad faith nominations. --Metropolitan90 07:14, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
- Speedy keep of course this is keep. - cohesion | talk 08:29, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
- Speedy keep per above. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 09:05, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
- Speedy keep as per above reasons. —Phil | Talk 09:07, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
- Speedy keep of course. per above. Dismas|(talk) 09:09, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep for hit show and bad-faith nomination. It's time to end anonymous nominations. --rob 09:20, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
- Speedy keep and block user. -- Kjkolb 10:29, 10 October 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.
