Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shane MacGowan's Teeth

 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 no consensus reached. The votes to delete were roughly equal to votes for merging and keeping. That said, more of the "don't delete" votes suggested merging, so I'm adding a "merge" tag to the article and listing it on WP:DA. Joyous 23:48, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)

Shane MacGowan's Teeth
I'm not quite sure whether this qualifies for speedy (as patent nonsense), so I'm listing it here. Smoddy | Talk 00:02, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC) Proposal: Looks like a strong consensus for merge. If there are no objections in twenty-four hours I propose to perform a redirect and merge and delist this article. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:59, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Not nonsense, see patent nonsense. Delete though. --fvw *  00:03, 2004 Dec 30 (UTC)
 * Delete. Nyuk nyuk nyuk. And Shane MacGowan seems to need some NPOVing in places, being a little too fanshippy. JRM 00:11, 2004 Dec 30 (UTC)
 * Delete. Whilst Shane MacGowan's oral health is legendary, it doesn't need its own article. Rje 00:21, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * BJAODN, redirect to Shane MacGowan to prevent recreation. Kappa 00:29, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, not notable. Megan1967 01:15, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Merge. This belongs on the Shane MacGowan page. It's a paragraph, not a stand-alone article. LostCluster 01:46, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, interesting and notable. Move to Shane MacGowan's teeth and list on cleanup. Possibly merge if it isn't significantly expanded within a few days. Everyking 03:42, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: No need to merge. DCEdwards1966 04:18, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)
 * Articles like this should be quietly merged rather than listed for deletion. But in this case, delete is fine too since there is no encyclopedic content, it's an unlikely external link and there are no internal ones except for deletion links and one from Shane MacGowan. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:26, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Merge with the main MacGowan article as a trivia item, as this physical feature is notable and something of a trademark for the man. That said, in some respects devoting a separate article to this subject could be almost seen as trolling MacGowan. And it's about as appropriate as an article wholly devoted to Dolly Parton's breasts. 23skidoo 16:50, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I think you'd need two articles for Dolly Parton's breasts. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:26, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Merge with Shane McGowan, as long as you understand that by merge, I mean merge only the fact that he has bad teeth, and none of the other bits of speculation. I would be fine with deleting and not merging as well. Tuf-Kat 22:28, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)
 * Already there. Quote: "He has very few teeth (his dental situation has been part of his "reputation" for years)  [...]". I think that's enough. Nothing to merge here, move along. :-) JRM 22:39, 2004 Dec 30 (UTC)
 * There is no speculation contained in this article. Shane Mac freely admits to the causes of his rotten teeth in his book "A Drink With Shane MacGowan. Kurt Shaped Box
 * Well zip-a-dee-do-dah and a merry-go-round for all. :-) How about adding this, plus source if possible, to the main article then? (And yes, Shane MacGowan's Teeth does present it as pure speculation, citing "possible reasons" &mdash; how is a poor reader to know those are supposed to be factual?) JRM 01:47, 2004 Dec 31 (UTC)
 * I was most doubtful about the crack and meth reference. By all means, cite the book and put it in the main article.  And FTR, I'd be more inclined to accept an article on Dolly Parton's breasts. Tuf-Kat 03:26, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)
 * Added references to Shane's book and removed unsubstatiated rumour. I say we Keep this article, as Shane's teeth are as much a part of his appeal as the man himself... Kurt Shaped Box 21:01, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep - I like it!--Is Mise le Méas, Irishpunktom 11:02, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)
 * Merge or Keep new version. Kappa 19:02, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge or Keep. chocolateboy 15:12, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep!!!!! left unsigned by 195.140.170.39
 * Merge plain and simple merge... I think merging would be more appropriate in the first place rather than listing for deletion. Pedant 22:38, 2005 Jan 4 (UTC)
 * Strongly object: there are several plain keep votes, and some votes in favor of deleting without merging. That's no "strong consensus". Everyking 20:40, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Proposal withdrawn. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:17, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd like my vote to be Merge without redirect, but that's not an option under the GFDL. Therefore, I must vote Delete because I do not want this article to exist, even if I want the information to be in the main Shane MacGowan article. Article on his teeth is not large enough to be separate. JRM 22:13, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)


 * Merge or keep Ropers 03:56, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Definitely Keep (but move to Shane MacGowan's teeth) Bush Me Up 00:58, 4 Jan 2005
 * Delete. Mrwojo 21:56, 4 Jan 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 on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.