Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Willie Morris Bioff

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 DELETE. However, Sherurcij, this wouldn't have happened if you hadn't saved a sub-sub-stub. You ARE allowed to make a full article before hitting Save. --Golbez 01:37, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Willie Morris Bioff[edit]

Not notable, little useful content --  B.d.mills  (Talk)


Yeah, how about we wait till I actually add content, seeing as how the page was added about 3 minutes ago? The whole purpose of a stub is to give the very minimum of detail until you, or somebody else, has time to add more.

  • rolls eyes*

--Sherurcij 05:25, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep, seems to be real, see this Time article. Involved with Frank Nitti in extorting Hollywood studios. --bainer 05:35, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My apologies if I was too quick for you. If one is editing an article, it helps if the article isn't saved until it is more complete. Otherwise mistakes like this can happen. All too often such skeleton articles aren't actively being edited and a vfd may be justified. In this case, the article stub would be improved if it had more information than a three-word sentence without a verb. --  B.d.mills  06:12, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes! I agree with that completely. Try to make a more complete article before posting. I do. Mgm|(talk) 08:28, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

Comment. Sherurcij, I'd like to offer you a friendly encouragement to strive for politeness. I'm sure that calmly explaining here on the Vfd talk page that you will be imminently adding to the article will provide adequate reason for a stay on deletion. You've been on Wikipedia a good while now, and it looks like you've been working hard to make improvements during that time, so well done. I look forward to seeing this article improve in the near future. EvilPhoenix

  • Keep, Times article suggests it's worth an article. Mgm|(talk) 08:28, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: only 3 words - is it not a {d}-case? AN 09:06, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy as #1. Radiant_* 11:06, May 13, 2005 (UTC) Keep as expanded. Radiant_* 16:01, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Hurry up and add something, or delete. Stubs are good, but even they tend to be longer than three words. --Jamyskis 11:54, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless somebody does expand the stub soon. A page with so little information and where over 30% of the text is mis-spelled is not really worth keeping. Keep - now a decent article. Naturenet 12:09, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Quickly jumping on people scares them off. Please don't bite the newbies. PedanticallySpeaking 16:33, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
    • How does an editor who's been active since October 2004 with 500+ edits qualify as a newbie? android↔talk 18:22, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless expanded (even a little). There's no point to keeping a three-word nanostub around. Keep as rewritten. Thanks, BD2412. android↔talk 19:46, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. I have found significant material on this person, and am expanding the article now. -- BDAbramson thimk 19:12, 2005 May 13 (UTC)
  • Keep as re-written. --Carnildo 19:36, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The new version looks great. Keep as it is. Jamyskis 20:43, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note. If the article is indeed kept, it should be moved to William Morris Bioff. -- BDAbramson thimk 21:08, 2005 May 13 (UTC)
  • Keep VfD abused as 'emergency cleanup' scores again. Good work, BD2412. --Unfocused 21:19, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The original content of the article was: A Mafia extotionist. That's a pretty clear speedy candidate under criterion A1. I wouldn't call this abuse of VfD. android↔talk 21:55, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't think that's abusing the VfD page. If people who are watching the page want to try and spend time salvaging an article, more power to them. I've done a little bit here and there to articles that I thought were worth keeping. Either way, we end up with less garbage, or better articles. EvilPhoenix
  • Strong Keep.  BDAbramson thimk has done an excellent job of expanding the article into a quality piece of work. Well done. It shows the Wikipedia system is working - an unsatisfactory article that should be deleted has been improved into a good article worth keeping. --  B.d.mills  (Talk) 00:51, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, now, with huge extensions => Keep AN 10:21, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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 the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Willie_Morris_Bioff&oldid=1167439675"