Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lilly the Beagle

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 09:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lilly the Beagle

An article about the original editor's pet dog. Prod removed, so here we are at AfD. Fails policy at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:No original research. Creating articles about your pets is so foolish that it is in Wikipedia:List of really, really, really stupid article ideas that you really, really, really should not create. Mr Stephen 08:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• delete this has to happened enough--Musaabdulrashid 08:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete--Mertens21/FrodoTBagins/DonkeyPunch21/Squirrel 09:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. BigHaz 09:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete What the-?! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, unverifiable vanity that also fails WP:OR, and it also fails WP:DUMB per nom. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 16:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per everything above. Dina 16:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as vanity. More famous canines than this (Lassie, Pluto, Checkers--the list goes on) have made it into our pages, but...one about an editor's favourite pet?! Goes against D-Day's opinions on this list. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 17:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I think there ought to be a speedy deletion criteria dealing with articles about some random person's pet.  :) Amazinglarry 18:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Awwwwwwwdelete: I'm sorry to pile on, but removing the prod notice from a personal pet article deserves a little bit of a pile. Geogre 20:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The utter stupidity involved here made me laugh, but something like this is fit only for Uncyclopedia. Moreschi 21:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Seriously, I could be cruel and make a joke about euthanasia on this one, since we all know that this article has no chance in hell of surviving. I'd even move for a speedy A7 as pet-bio with no notability asserted. --Kinu ^t/_c 23:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Or, of course, userfy if user wishes. Fails verifiability and probably cannot be made verifiable. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• What Geogre said. Jacqui^★ 18:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

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.