Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Babes in the Wood

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was keep. &mdash;Korath (Talk) 01:04, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

Babes in the Wood

 * Putting this up for deletion. No real facts included, does not provide a good overview of the play, nor an informative review. It appears to be a childrens play by a Dave Buchanan, so I am not sure how much Encyclopedia material that is. --Mceder 02:21, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC) Dang, nice rewrite. Sorry for the ignorance on this piece, but I guess in the end something good came out of it. Kudos to you sir!Keep --Mceder 04:16, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete, more then likely should be a speedy. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 07:07, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC) Much better now, Keep --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 00:04, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete
 * From article: ''(It sucks for children)realllllllyyyyyyy !!! :P:P:P written by ???? Victor is so funny he was the only cool person in the play.
 * BABES IN THE WOOD SUCKSS!!!!'' -- Mgm|(talk) 09:19, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep the rewrite. Nice save. Mgm|(talk) 18:15, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * It's actually a traditional children's tale, a popular pantomime story, and a story by Michael Arlen. This article doesn't do it justice, by any stretch of the imagination. Delete but let the redlinks stand so that a real article can grow some day. Keep because of rewrite. Uncle G 09:48, 2005 Mar 14 (UTC)
 * Delete. Agree with Uncle G. Keep. Rewrite is well done. —Markaci 2005-03-14 T 10:09 Z
 * Keep. This is a classic example of an article that would have been just as easy to clean up as to nominate for deletion. I've removed the ranting and the gibberish, and added in Uncle G's information as well as the fruits of a quick Google. My revision is far from definitive, and the article could stand fleshing out and verification. But I say we keep it and let it grow. --Jacobw 16:31, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, but on the other hand, no Wikipedia editor knows everything, and the original article hardly did a good job of persuading any editor who had never come across the story that what it was talking about actually existed. The rewrite is not perfect, but is enough.  I'll try to improve the article in a bit.  But I'm fresh from reading Hungarian and trying to fathom descriptions of sub-sub-castes written in broken Indian English, so I might not be up to much for the remainder of today.  &#9786; Uncle G 18:05, 2005 Mar 14 (UTC)
 * Keep now. Xezbeth  16:32, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep now. DJ Clayworth 17:41, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep now, and agree that cleanup would have been a good alternative to Vfd. Wasn't it linked from "pantomime"? Kappa 18:30, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Goodness. Well done, Uncle G. Voted keep. DS 03:00, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Credit for the rewrite should go to Jacobw, not to me. I just expanded it a bit afterwards. Uncle G 10:23, 2005 Mar 15 (UTC)
 * Uncle G is too modest--my initial article was a stub (which was based partly on info Uncle G had supplied in the first place.) His rewrite made it an article. --Jacobw 09:37, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.