Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pocketgate

Pocketgate

Pocketgate was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. 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.

My God. Not every minor non-event of the election deserves an article. It was a friggin' pen! Gamaliel 08:48, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. Can be covered on the debates page. This labeling doesn't seem widespread. — David Remahl 09:06, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. This is pretty insignificant, I'm not sure it even needs to be covered on the debates page. Louis Ward 01:53, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable User:Fledgeling01:58, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Tjwood 19:21, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Lost/widowed VfD from early October. Seems even more trivial now that it's over. Delete. Cool Hand Luke 06:38, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Extreme delete. This was hardly a scandal. Any pertinent data can be merged into the main debates article. —[[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 07:25, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• I think it does deserve coverage somewhere, if only to demonstrate how ludicrously partisan the debates got -- the incident is less noteworthy than the reaction to it. I'm pretty sure that it doesn't need its own article, though. Merge somewhere. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:30, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Extreme delete. I don't think this even deserves a mention in the article about the debates, either. --Idont Havaname 01:09, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages 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.