Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter buchanan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 21:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peter Buchanan

Peter Buchanan (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Sources are entirely missing, and for several facts in the article (dandruff, wet toilet paper, ...) I doubt that they can be sourced adequately at all. High on a tree 09:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. Pure hoax. Sr13 09:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Commment. I don't think it's a complete hoax (see List of Judges of the Supreme Court of Victoria). Recurring dreams 10:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, but interesting all the same. I fear that its not entirely a hoax and if you read it closely it kind of comes across as a semi-bitter autobiographical piece. I hope I'm wrong given the subject. But as far as WP is concerned this article has hardly any useful content with no sources stated (I've done a little research and couldn't find any). There is nothing here to save. —Moondyne 10:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep as DGG has stubified. —Moondyne 05:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete or stubify Keep - This is a real justice, but, yes, the content is thoroughly bizarre. I just noticed this has actually been deleted twice before under the proper capitalisation of the guy's name - (admin only link) is even more incredulous than the current version. For those who aren't admins, it ends: "Some say he is the messiah for the legal order, and others say that he is the voice of justice. One thing that remains undisputed, however, is that he will be part of the Australian psyche for a very long time. Long live Justice Buchanan, Australia loves you." Orderinchaos 11:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC) Changed vote to keep after changes to the article since my vote. Orderinchaos 03:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as an unsourced Biography of a living person that makes outrageous claims with no prejudice against recreation should a serious article be written. -- Mattinbgn/ talk 13:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep as a result of recent edits. Still needs sources.-- Mattinbgn/ talk 03:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, although stubify is just possible. I think it's best we get rid of it until someone wants to write a real one. --Dhartung | Talk 13:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Stoic atarian 20:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep if sourced. Judges of his rank are N. Drastic cutting can take care of the BLP & I just did it. Still needs at least one source for the actual career. DGG 02:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Have referenced him so far with two notable cases he was involved with. Assize 09:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep; the article is in good shape due to DGG and Assize's work. John Vandenberg 09:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Good stub. good refs. worth the wikispace Twenty Years 16:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Agree the article as nominated was awful, but it's in good shape now for a stub and can blossom from here. KrakatoaKatie 13:06, 16 May 2007 (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.