Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ugly

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 of the debate was Speedy Redirect, Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 23:19, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ugly

This article has a really screwed up history. I say either Cleanup or Delete to wipe history and recreate majorly. Most of the edits to this article are just vandalism and reversion, and when I went to revert some vandalism, I was unable to find a useful version to revert to. As it stands, the article consists of one sentence. And somebody needs to give this some major cleanup Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 02:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean-up. Worthwhile entry. Let's just settle on some decent text and have a couple of good people put it on their watchlists. Vandalismbuster
- User's second edit, no article space edits. Kusma (討論) 20:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as dicdef until somebody can think of something better than redirecting Ugliness to Beauty. Kusma (討論) 15:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is a non-encyclopedic venue for people to abuse other people. Ruby 16:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki remove vandalism on the article and add Template:Wi allowing people to be directed to the wiktionary--TBC 17:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, clean-up and re-name to Ugliness.--ThreeAnswers 18:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Ugliness exists and was a vandal magnet before it was redirected to Beauty. Kusma (討論) 18:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I can see this turning into a decent article if someone decides to give it some time. I agree with the sentiment that we leave it as a stub and see what happens, while keeping an eye on ot to prevent vandalism. Beniceplease
- User's first edit. Kusma (討論) 20:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this version with no prejudice against recreating a legitimate article on the subject. As it stands, it's transparently obvious that the creator meant this to be an attack page, from the image. Daniel Case 20:13, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Use Template:Wi. -- Astrokey44|talk 20:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- could be useful article -- ugly (or ugliness) is a well known concept that seems distinct enough from beauty to require its own article. As for the assertion that this is an attack page, it may be as it stands but if you look at the history you'll see that this was once a legitimite article. Also, perhaps would be a good idea to add some of the old text / gargoyle image from the old (pre-redirect) ugliness article (see history) to beef this up a little bit and hopefully get the ball rolling on some worthwhile edits. Cooldude02
keep and cleanup as above Jcuk 22:10, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ugliness has been recreated and is quite a good stub, so delete ugly. --Bduke 02:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've been WP:BOLD and redirected Ugly to Ugliness. Is this now acceptable, and do we need to continue the debate. With no objections, I will close the debate tomorrow at 11:00 AM UTC (approx. 24 hours from now) Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 11:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good on you, mate. That's the way to go. Hope you understand the Aussie! (Translated: A well thought out redirect. Please close this debate.). --Bduke 12:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm Aussie too :) Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 00:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.