Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Runny Babbit
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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was speedy keep: a complete rewrite. mikka (t) 22:50, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
General sillyness RoySmith 02:39, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I withdraw my delete vote as nominator; with Isotope23's rewrite, this is an obvious keeper. It's actually kind of cool; we went from a request for speedy delete, to AfD, to a keepable article, all in less than a day. At this rate, we'll have a Featured Article candidate by the end of the voting period :-) --RoySmith 18:45, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as advertisement with a bit of nonsense thrown in. Silly, but not good enough for BJAODN. --Jacquelyn Marie 02:54, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Not silly as an article, it's just about Shel Silverstein's last book. Delete since all the information is already in the Shel Silverstein article. --Metropolitan90 03:48, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This book appears to have widely reviewed and is by a notable author. I would vote to keep a decent stub. However, this is an article stating that the author hasn't read the book but you should. I will vote to delete it unless a decent stub or article is written. Capitalistroadster 04:10, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Shel Silverstein. --Apyule 07:58, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. PacknCanes 17:00, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]- Keep I rewrote the article.... please take a look. Several of his other books have individual articles. Beyond that, several other children's authors have books with individual articles. Barring keep though, I'd go with a redirect.--Isotope23 17:36, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks good to me. Good work, sir -- I change my vote to keep. PacknCanes 18:23, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and expand Isotope23's good little stub. Thanks to him for the rewrite. Capitalistroadster 18:30, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Nice work! the wub "?!" 20:03, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.