Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Beatrice dedications


 * 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 Merge to Beatrice Baudelaire (younger) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

List of Beatrice dedications

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Original research and violates Wikipedia is not a list of indiscriminate information. <3 Clamster 01:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge to Beatrice Baudelaire (younger). This is clearly notable, but does not merit its own article.--Orthologist 09:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Why the younger Beatrice? Shouldn't it be merged with the older Beatrice's article, as this is the one Snicket talks about. By all means, merge it, but please don't delete it. Microchip08 11:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC) (original author).


 * Also, it may be "original research", but what is wrong with that? It is correct research - surely it shouldn't matter if it is original or not? Microchip08 11:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I quote from WP:NOT Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not automatically mean it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. <3 Clamster 16:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 02:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Merge! I don't want to lose my work! microchip08 14:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)`


 * I'm relisting this debate because my opinion of this article differs from the only response in this AfD. I'm withholding my opinion in case I end up closing this one anyway. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 02:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete as the very essence of in-world trivia. It's not OR because it shows no thought at all, beyond the bare idea to make such a totally useless article. DGG 05:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge to the article about the book series. I don't think it even needs a redirect as anyone looking for info would go there first. --killing sparrows 00:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - fancruft and OR. MSJapan 04:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete (can IP editors vote on this? But at least hear my reasons) - even if it was cleaned up so as to be actually accurate, it isn't necessary to have this on Wikipedia. 81.152.33.236 14:11, 12 April 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.