Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/"spring cleaning"

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. Johnleemk | Talk 14:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "spring cleaning"

Non-encyclopedic. Andrew Levine 02:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep, if this can be verified. Needs NPOV, new article Spring Cleaning (no quotes) and some general editing to conform to wikipedia standards. Jawz 03:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I totally agree with Jawz. - Tony 03:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless this gets cleaned up. Right now it's really not encyclopedic, and just defining what the phrase means might be more of a job for wiktionary anyway. --W.marsh 03:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• weak keep; it's in awful shape, but it has content that could be useful if better packaged.--ragesoss 04:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but move to new name per Jawz. Content is atrocious, but it's a legitimate entry. Dbtfz 04:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep, but needs drastic Cleanup and Rename to Spring cleaning. Sycthos^Talk 05:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • There's nothing preventing anyone from creating Spring cleaning. I don't see what the need to keep the article with the title in quotations is, those are routinely deleted. --W.marsh 05:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment/Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-17 05:34Z
• Delete or transwiki to wiktionary without the quotes. This will never become an encyclopedia entry. Zunaid 07:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, notable custom, can be expanded to discuss range and origins. Kappa 08:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Move to Spring cleaning and keep with (spring) cleanup tag -- Astrokey44|talk 08:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep notable annual event, per Jawz. Essexmutant 11:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Move to Spring cleaning as per Astrokey44, then wikify, stubify and cleanup. —gorgan_almighty 14:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. No reason given to delete a good article. -- JJay 15:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as Spring cleaning. Has the potential to be an interesting article. Zagalejo 16:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and rename to Spring cleaning. A clearly notable term. JIP | Talk 18:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and move to Spring cleaning, then enhance (as per Sycthos). E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 20:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep as redirected. Close AfD. Ifnord 22:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: As there has been delete votes, a speedy keep is not possible. Stifle 14:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nothing more can really come of the article than a dicdef. I suspect once this article gets a good spring cleaning of its own, it will become more obvious that this is the case. Peyna 03:41, 22 January 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.