Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/25 O'Clock


 * 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. Owen&times; &#9742;  21:18, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

25 O'Clock
This is so confusing that I can't even call it patent nonsense. Stifle 00:39, 29 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Merge with XTC or Dukes of Stratosphear, or at least allow a rewrite to eliminate POV. XTC (and its successors) have been around since 1972 and have a worldwide following. 147.70.242.21 00:54, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and Cleanup. Notable EP released by the Dukes of Stratosphear aka XTC. Allmusic.com rated it "one of XTC's best releases under any name" see . Capitalistroadster 01:04, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep a notable release. I've cleaned it up to hopefully be coherent.  Someone who is more familiar with doing album articles than I can probably add the infobox and whatnot easilly.  --W.marsh 01:05, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Well done to W. Marsh for his work. Capitalistroadster 03:40, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Nice cleanup (and a great album).  Bikeable 04:51, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * keep this too please it is much better now Yuckfoo 05:11, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * keep Decent Stub.-- --(User | Talk | Contribs) 06:01, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep and close Vfd. Obvious.  stub it too. Zordrac 08:43, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep I've clarified it and expanded it some. It only ever needed some fixing up, it was never really a deletion candidate. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  13:35, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but enough debate to still be able to assume that this was a good faith nomination. Still wrong to nominate it though.  But we all make mistakes. Zordrac 20:21, 29 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Merge with XTC or Dukes of Stratosphear. I'm not comfortable with opening up WP to articles on singles. --  Dalbury ( Talk )  21:46, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. I've extended it a bit further too. As to "opening up WP to articles on singles", there are a lot of articles on singles on Wikipedia already. And this was officially released as a mini-album. Grutness...wha?  00:22, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Preaky 23:15, 1 December 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.