Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oh! Mr Porter!

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 14:37, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Oh! Mr Porter!

Completely idiosyncratic non-topic. Let us delete it. Turpissimus 80.229.228.203 01:07, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete, article as it stands is not encyclopaedic. Megan1967 01:59, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

*Speedy delete. Hedley 03:05, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC) Keep now be re-write article to Wikipedia standards. For example, it shouldn't be starting with a heading, or at least i've never seen an article starting with one. Also, it needs to clearly distinguish just with "Oh! Mr Porter" is; If there is more than one thing that is "Oh! Mr Porter", it should be disambiguation. Topic is now notable, though, and not vandalism as before. Hedley 22:34, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Speedy. Patent nonsense anyone? CXI 03:10, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Comment: It was nice of the contributor to try and help us out with the lyrics when they clicked on that red link and wikipedia invited them to make an article. Kappa 03:21, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Speedy as Patent Nonsense Merge with the article on the film. --Carnildo 04:12, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Speedy. Too weird. - Lucky 6.9 07:25, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
It's not patent nonsense. It is a fairly well-known British music-hall song sung by Marie Lloyd and these are the lyrics. Used as the inspiration for a Will Hay film in 1937. But it's still non-encyclopaedic. Delete. Dbiv 10:12, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep as rewritten. It is now encyclopaedic. Dbiv 19:18, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Merge with that film or delete. -- Riffsyphon1024 10:15, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
Not patent nonsense, the words to a music hall song. If someone writes a good article about the film of the same name then perhaps I may reconsider my vote, but currently delete. Average Earthman 12:10, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Now a keep since revision. Average Earthman 22:12, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
~~Not a speedy, but yes a delete~~ - David Gerard 17:28, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep new version. Excellent rewrite! - David Gerard 10:27, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I can go for that. I didn't know this was something that actually existed. Gotta stop pulling the trigger... - Lucky 6.9 04:18, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Oh Mr. Porter what a silly article I am. Jonathunder 03:50, 2005 Mar 22 (UTC)

Keep. It went from a rather silly sub-stub which didn't even identify the subject matter, to a very solid stub, and now hopefully on its way to a decent article. So I've changed my vote. Jonathunder 23:35, 2005 Mar 24 (UTC)

Delete Mr. Porter. Keep and/or Merge if necessary as content has been added. Ganymead 02:14, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I've rewritten the article to make it more keepworthy. I'd respectfully suggest that this is a case where flagging an item for cleanup is more appropriate than nominating it for deletion. Before you nominate an article for deletion, or vote "delete," please take the time to see what other articles link to it. In this case, you'd have seen that it was a song by a noted musichall performer, and not just a series of random phrases. --Jacobw 15:07, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Maybe it's a real song and movie. Mykola Petrenko 17:46, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep I have also added to the article, to make it more encyclopedic. I actually wrote a stub on the film, but on second thoughts I think we should have a single article on the song and the film. However we should be sure about the exact punctuation and spelling of the title. It is possible that the exact title of the song and the film may vary, it may be the exact title of the song is unclear. The film is better known nowadays, its spelling is easier to establish, treat it as standard.PatGallacher 18:31, 2005 Mar 24 (UTC)
Merge as history of title into the film article. Yes, it is better than it was, although I seriously worry about the two exclamation marks as one is correct for the song and the other for the film, but neither has both, thus the article title as it stands is incorrect both ways! --Vamp:Willow 19:49, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep now Kappa 20:01, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Strong Keep if we have articles for all sorts of modern pop songs, I can't see any reason why we shouldn't have them on traditional songs as well. If anyone doubts that it's a real song, there was a Herman's Hermits cover from the mid-60s as well. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:05, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
Extreme hyper keep. —RaD Man (talk) 20:07, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Good point, VampWillow. I now propose to be bold, but as things could be getting confused I will wait 24 hours or so for anyone to object before I do this. That is, I will treat "Oh, Mr Porter!" (the film title) as the primary form, merge anything that is not already merged into a single article under that title, and turn "Oh! Mr Porter!" and "Oh! Mr Porter" into redirects. PatGallacher 20:16, 2005 Mar 24 (UTC)
Keep. As currently written, this is a good aticle. -Willmcw 20:30, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
Strong keep. It's now a perfectly good stub article about an old Music Hall song with an interesting history. Admittedly the article was somewhat sparse at the time it was listed, comprising then only the lyrics of part of the song. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:53, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Strong keep of new rewrite. Glad I checked my talk page! Great new article. - Lucky 6.9 23:38, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep - this article has transformed itself (with a little help from Wikipedians!) over the last week. Ian Cairns 13:28, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep -- Lochaber 15:16, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete --Spinboy 19:15, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep -- Worth keeping now that it is upgraded into an article. Rlquall 01:21, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.