Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vote for the Worst
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 was speedy keep. Daft website, but even worse AfD nomination. Sandstein 20:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Vote for the Worst (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
This article follows all the rules. It's referenced, it's notable, and it's reasonably well-written. The only problem is that its subject is extraordinarily stupid. Do we really need an article about bored fans voting for the worst singer in America? I don't think so. YechielMan 18:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep. "Its subject is stupid" is NOT a valid reason for deletion at all. Even you state that the article has reliable sources and is notable, which are two of the key reasons for inclusion on Wikipedia. Articles can't be deleted just because you don't like them. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 18:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep This subject is definitely notable judging by the press they received. The article is sourced properly and describes the importance and purpose of the site. It may be a stupid topic, but it's a notable stupid topic. --Cyrus Andiron 18:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep - right from the nominator's argument - his article follows all the rules. It's referenced, it's notable, and it's reasonably well-written. The only problem is that its subject is extraordinarily stupid. No policy given whatsoever - in fact, nominator admits no policy is against this article. The Evil Spartan 18:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't a rule. You said it yourself nominator "This article follows all the rules. It's referenced, it's notable, and it's reasonably well-written." Wildthing61476 19:59, 18 May 2007 (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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.