Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bad British teeth

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 was delete. Addhoc (talk) 19:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bad British teeth[edit]

The article currently consists of two sentences, and I frankly cannot see how it could be expanded much further. Wikipedia is not a collection of stereotypes, especially when it would be seemingly impossible for an article to become encyclopedic. Obviously, this information might be appropriate to mention in a pre-existing, more general article, if it is not already. Thus, any salvageable information should be merged to an undetermined article, and this article should be deleted. · jersyko talk 00:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- Redfarmer (talk) 00:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only possibility for merge would be something like Stereotype#English_stereotypes, but I don't really endorse a merge, rather just plain delete. Yng varr 01:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Doc Strange (talk) 02:10, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ per Ugly American. TableManners ^U·T·C 05:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, not even comparable, in my opinion. See The Ugly American. · jersyko talk 05:16, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Ugly American seems to be an article about an epithet, Bad British teeth seems to have been created to explore / further a stereotype - not what wikipedia is for. --Beloved Freak 00:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Brad (talk) 12:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too small to warrant its own article. Should be included in article relating to English stereotypes, per Belovedfreak.Alloranleon (talk) 00:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteSpinningspark (talk) 14:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unencyclopaedic speculation on a stereotype. Could possibly be redirected to Stereotype#English_stereotypes, but there is no useful info to merge. Please don't merge with Teeth! --Beloved Freak 00:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is a crap. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hardly encyclopedic, and could possibly satisfy Wikipedia:CSD#G10, albeit very loosely. Nouse4aname (talk) 12:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ DeleteRa2007 (talk) 17:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It would be good if those voting delete would also disclose if they are British subjects and/or if they have bad teeth. Ra2007 (talk) 17:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Amusing, but as the below pointed out, it's besides the point. That said, you wouldn't happen to be American, would you? ;) Alloranleon (talk) 17:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Strangely, this article is showing up as number 2 on google.[1] Wikipedia has friendlies on the inside at google, it appears. Ra2007 (talk) 17:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've never had a cavity and I'm an American. This is completely irrelevant, however. Whether this article complies with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for articles is the question. · jersyko talk 17:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete: Unencyclopedic. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not even wrong. Bearian (talk) 19:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough sourced material for a valid article. Lawrence Cohen 22:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No chance. Speedy close. TableManners ^U·T·C 03:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the many good reasons already cited. Gwernol 03:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- As a Brit I was curious about the 'Time' reference cited. It dates from 1945, although this is not made clear in the article. There ARE issues about dentistry in the UK, mainly caused by funding issues regarding payment to dentists for NHS treatment, but mentioning that is going decidedly off-topic! EdJogg (talk) 10:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete A clumsy title. Little content. More useful and encyclopaedic would be an article on 'prevalence of dental caries by nation', perhaps with tables showing per capita expenditure on dental health.

Riversider2008 (talk) 12:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC) Riversider2008 (talk) 12:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Straight violation of WP:NOT. This probably would have been deleted if put up for WP:CSD. Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 13:41, 5 January 2008 (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.