Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Betograve


 * 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   keep. v/r - TP 16:16, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Betograve

 * – ( View AfD View log )

One more of the many substubs by this editor, having his signature: it is a copy paste from one of the the first links that comes up on Google, writen as " says in that ". WP is not a copy paste mirror of Google searches, our readers, and our editors deserve better than this. And better nothing, and a chance to start afresh, than this. Nabla (talk) 00:50, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. --Legis (talk - contribs) 03:25, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - This is a perfectly valid stub article about a notable concrete engraving technique. Any deficiencies in the style of writing should be addressed through editing. Deletion is a last resource and should be reserved for only article topics which are not deserving of an article. Fix it, don't delete it. Mice never shop (talk) 19:00, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per Mice - most of WP started this way. Johnbod (talk) 16:09, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * False argument. Check a sample of 10 Special:Random article's first edit: Edward Robeson Taylor, Kömür, Adıyaman, Stella D'oro, Dufay Collective, Open system (computing), Broadway (1929 film), Union for French Democracy, The Gorgeous, Cyperus haspan, Media Control Interface. All stubish, most have some kind of effort with formatting; most have a box, a stub category, or some effort to organize. 10 or 9 of them are far far better than this one. WP did NOT started this way. Stubs, yes, please, keep'em coming; Copy & paste Google searches are not needed - Nabla (talk) 02:23, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 *  Speedy keep Keep. As I make it out, nominator seems to be saying, "Yes, this is a notable subject, but this piss-poor non-effort is not good enough." A fair judgment, I would dare to say, but only an argument for improvement. Where exactly is the argument for deletion? "Better nothing, and a chance to start afresh, than this"? Is nominator actually fearful that an art history professor with 1,500 well-footnoted words to say on the subject will see that WP has already covered the subject, and demur? I can see the argument for annoyance, but as no actual argument for deletion is proffered, I recommend speedy keep. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 19:24, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * One, that you do not agree with the nomination (which is fair) does not make it void, the argument is exactly the one you noticed, agree or not. Second, why the rush? Are you afraid this gets deleted if not speedy kept? I doubt it... Is the discussion too heated, insulting or whatever reason to stop it? I don't see any. Why the rush, why the desire to avoid any further input? Please, drop the 'speedy's, except for the plain obvious. - Nabla (talk) 02:07, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * PS: And the day the said art professor gets to WP and finds out that Google searches poses as articles, how likely is it that he does not even try, because he knows any effort of his will be overridden by a multitude of editors that believe a Google search is an artcle? - Nabla (talk) 02:27, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Very well, if you honestly believe that "notable but not good enough" is really an argument for deletion, let's give it its day week in court. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 04:02, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:RUBBISH
 * Thank you! Most of all, I believe that usually there is no need to rush closing discussions. - Nabla (talk) 18:12, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Note

Taken from .--Coin945 (talk) 02:02, 16 December 2011 (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.