Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Never nude

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. - Mailer Diablo 11:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Never nude[edit]

A minor plot device from episodes of Arrested Development doesn't qualify for an article of its own. Not even important enough to merge into the show's own article. Fancruft. wikipediatrix 05:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Minor plot devices can be important too, though I'm pretty sure this one isn't. Please don't throw around the term fancruft as it is overly generic and possibly inflammatory to some (I know I get irritated by it). Your nomination works fine without it. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm pretty sure there's nothing wrong with saying fancruft given that it just means I'm too lazy to make an actual argument for deletion. WilyD 13:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, amusing as the plot device (and the scene the picture's from) is. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. JIP | Talk 10:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless reliable sources are added. Topic seems encyclopaedic enough if verifiable third party sources have covered it. WilyD 13:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even if reliable sources are added. "Minor plot devices can be important too!" You guys really brighten up my day. Recury 14:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- More like I prefer the judgement of reliable sources on whether things are notable to the opinions of Wikipedians WilyD 14:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, hilarious recurring joke from one of the funniest series to ever air on television; but it in no way merits a stand-alone article. Now if you'll excuse me I have to get back to blending my professional interest in being an "analyst" with being a "therapist". Maybe I should get some business cards made....--Isotope23 15:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Now, if this were analrapist, it would be...exactly the same decision now that I think of it. This has its place on the Internet, but Wikipedia is not that place. Erechtheus 23:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Doczilla 05:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. TGreenburg

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.