Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Weirdo magnet

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 keep. Shanel 01:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Weirdo magnet

This looks like nonsense to me. Wanted to get consensus rather than listing for speedy deletion. Lbbzman 03:02, 29 January 2006 (UTC) Withdrawn. I had seen the mirror site, but the comment about Buck 65 seemed just as nonsensical to me. Lbbzman 20:44, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Looks like nonsense to me. This has been here since August? And yet none of our mirrors seems to have picked it up. But a Google search comes up with a deleted page at www.run-shoes.com/articles/Buck_65 which claims copyright on it, though why they would want to copyright this nonsense, I can't imagine. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:06, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • That's a Wikipedia mirror, and the article being mirrored is our Buck 65 article. There is a comment on this article's talk page and an HTML comment in this article's wikitext saying that it was split out from there. Uncle G 09:13, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per nom (I would say it is nonsense). --Hansnesse 03:18, 29 January 2006 (UTC) Change to Keep per good catch by Uncle G. --Hansnesse 19:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete pn (nonsense) Nick Catalano (Talk) 03:50, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• This article is intelligible and clearly describes an album entitled Wierdo Magnet by a musician named Tefry. A quick glance at the article's talk page and "What links here" indicates that this musician is Buck 65, whose discography lists this album. I encourage editors to perform these very basic checks on articles nominated for deletion and to not abuse the speedy deletion criteria. Allmusic confirms that this album exists. Keep. Uncle G 09:13, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • If this is a very basic check, perhaps it should be mentioned at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion or even integrated into the nomination process, so this sort of mistake does not happen again (at least not often). --Hansnesse 19:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
    • It already says it at the top of the AfD page under "Things to consider". Peyna 19:43, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Wow, not my day for careful reading I guess. I stand corrected. --Hansnesse 19:49, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I've added a note re talk pages there - thanks for the suggestion. Turnstep 20:00, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as Complete bollocks. Essexmutant 09:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above. Batmanand 10:06, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or redirect to Buck 65, this is a conceptual series of untitled tracks released by said artist. This is not patent nonsense and absolutely should not be speedy deleted. [1][2][3][4][5] Can't sleep, clown will eat me 10:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• keep - per Uncle G. -- Geo Swan 11:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per Uncle G and clean up by clearly identifying Buck 65 as the artist. Capitalistroadster 11:41, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but cleanup and make it conform with any style requirements for album pages so it is clearer what it is. Peyna 15:25, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 16:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or redirect per CSCWEM. Turnstep 20:00, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Very weak keep -- This article is far too much original analysis, it's entirely unsourced, and is fairly devoid of facts about the album. IT needs so much reworking to be a valid article that it may be best to delete and start over. keep only if entirely rewritten. Night Gyr 08:55, 1 February 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.