Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Last Married Couple in America

This page is an archive of the discussion surrounding the proposed deletion of the page entitled The Last Married Couple in America.

This page is kept as an historic record.

The result of the debate was to keep the article.

Some IP tagged this article with a VfD tag, but hasn't listed it here. Originally it was just a data dump of the cast/crew credits. I have replaced that with a stub (short--I don't think I saw the movie, and IMDB and rottentomatos.com don't have much info). I think it should be kept, but I don't believe I have the right to arbitrarily remove the VfD tag, so I'm listing it here. Niteowlneils 17:44, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Keep and expand.  Why would this have been listed for deletion in the first place, I wonder? - Lucky 6.9 17:45, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Check the history--the original entry was capital U ugly. Niteowlneils 18:03, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Ugh. Kiddy-Wiki.  I see what you mean. - Lucky 6.9 18:58, 12 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Good Lord. Grudingly keep. Who knows? The fate of Planet Earth may hang in the balance if an article about some B comedy was deleted... Alcarillo 17:52, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep - disk space is cheap. Writing a stub to replace a poor or nonsense article often consumes less Wikipedian time than VfDing it.  Good job, do it early and often. - TB 18:24, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
 * I agree. Ever since I added New Pages patrol to the mix, I've had many more "opportunities" to do just that. :/ Niteowlneils 01:52, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Stublike but encyclopedic, will expand as soon as anyone is interested enough to add a synopsis and see whether any of the other credits are otherwise notable. I've copied the removed text to the talk page, it may be useful to later editors, they may not find it in the history and in any case it's a courtesy. Andrewa 20:41, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I didn't know that was common practice. Niteowlneils 01:52, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment: It's not as common as it once was! It used to be very staunchly defended once. We've got friendlier and less legalistic by my observation, and I think that's good. But at least we should be aware of when removed text may be useful later, and IMO when in doubt it's good to put it in. Andrewa 09:02, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep as it has real info if slightly esoteric Burgundavia 06:23, May 13, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, it's been apropriately stubbified. --Starx 13:29, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve with plot bits. JFW | T@lk  20:35, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
 * You know you're not famous anymore when your linked name comes up in red. Too bad, Richard Benjamin. And we so loved ye once, lad. Keep, for old times sake. Denni 06:11, 2004 May 18 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue should be placed on other relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.