Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buy Me


 * 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 ~ Anthony  01:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Buy Me

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

non-notable and unreferenced. Nardman1 03:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Me per nom. YechielMan 03:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete per WP:CSD - totally NN - A l is o n  ☺ 04:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete Could be developed into a better article, but I doubt it will. Jmlk17 07:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Week Keep. It's as notable as any cable television show on HGTV. Tag for expansion and monitor. --Crunch 11:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak delete Like Crunch said, this one is just like any other show on HGTV. Most of these are borderline cases that could go either way. In this instance, I'm thinking delete mainly because of the article's history (including a page blanking by the original editor), which leads me to believe that the article won't be significantly improved. Seed 2.0 12:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. I am going to abstain on this matter, 'cause the creator of the article in question already thinks I've got it out for him.  When this article was created, I tagged it db-copyvio because most of the text was lifted directly from the program's page on hgtv.com.  If you look at the article history, you will see a series of reversions, re-tagging for deletion, page blanking, etc., as its creator attempted to stop various editors from deleting it.  Finally, I put the edit tags that are currently seen on the article, i.e. wikification and referencing.  I haven't the slightest inkling that the improvements will be made.  I wash my hands of it, but see no value in it either. ---Charles 23:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep/cleanup/expand - "Non-notable" is silly -- hundreds of other TV shows have articles. However, it is unencyclopedic as written.  I wrote another version at Buy Me/temp -- please move (history merge) that over this article once the deletion vote is over.  –radiojon 22:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Why didn't you just edit the article in question? Keep and expand as there is a reliable source in that version, and Google News gives some more articles like that. –Pomte 04:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep as rewritten at Buy Me/temp, looks good so far. Much better than the hundreds of Simpsons one offs we host, too.  RFerreira 06:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per current situation unless the Buy Me/temp replaces it. &mdash; Indon ( reply ) &mdash; 09:01, 6 May 2007 (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.