Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bring It On Again


 * 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 as rewritten by User:Plutor. &mdash; J I P  | Talk 08:27, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Bring It On Again
The page covers nothing about the movie, and the grammar/spelling is atrocious. It's not even long enough to be considered an article. 68.61.255.12 23:13, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * UE, D ComCat 02:36, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete In addition to the nonsense tag, maybe we need a 'crap' tag? Jasmol 04:20, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * comment- I second the call for a tag. Reyk 06:52, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Please don't let Wikipedia turn into the IMDb message boards. Mrtea 04:33, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Send it straight to WikiHell, and salt the ground so that nothing will grow ther again. Sheesh! Reyk 05:22, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Change my vote to keep Reyk 20:47, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. Terrible article, but the movie does have an IMDb entry. &spades;DanMS 05:47, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete: An article on the movie might pass muster, but this one just passes gas. It's written in quasi-gibberish, is virtually a substub, and isn't actually about the movie.  Geogre 10:59, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per Geogre. Film may be real, but this article only states it's not a sequel. Contains no info on what it actually IS. - Mgm|(talk) 11:01, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Plutor's rewrite. - Mgm|(talk) 19:41, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. The content is bad, not the subject.  This belongs on cleanup or stubs, not here.  (I've tried to improve it just a little.) -- Plutor 14:39, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. Dottore So 15:38, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong keep as the article has now been rewritten into a proper Wikipedia-style film stub. Good work Plutor. There is plenty of precedent for film articles, and there are plenty out there that just need improvement. 23skidoo 16:03, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep, and note that the previour "Delete" votes above refer to an earlier version of the page. &mdash; Asbestos | Talk   (RFC)  16:05, 16 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep as cleanup. --Elliskev 19:43, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep the rewrite. &mdash; Haeleth Talk 21:09, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep, another malinformed nomination by ComCat.Gateman1997 22:06, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * keep please gateman is right this is not a good nomination Yuckfoo 23:06, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * It was actually. The previous version that was nominated contained 2 sentences of non-information, which in my view were quite close to being speediable. - Mgm|(talk) 09:12, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep especially in its current state. Turnstep 03:03, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Bring It On Again is the second best title in the Bring It On franchise of movies. &mdash;Brim 07:11, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Preaky 14:23, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. -- DS1953 02:42, 20 November 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.