Talk:Angel Bob

This angel is esetially a charecter in its own right and should be allowed to stay. The ood page has Sigma so why cant this belong to the angels has a notable indavidual charecter page.

I would assume the major reason for the proposed deletion is the many violations of the Manual of Style (Recommended reading for any editors). The Spelling alone is enough to cause headaches (and on this talk page - "Byzantium","essentially" and "individual" jump out). You should also sign your posts (by clicking the signature button) on a talk page. 86.134.188.188 21:35, April 24, 2010 (UTC)

Well, sure, there are copyediting problems here, starting with the title. But that alone isn't enough to get rid of the article. That's cause to help the editor, at least by applying a cleanup and a rename tag. I'm gonna do that, and throw in a conjecture tag too. We honestly don't know what the name of this individual is yet. Maybe we'll never know. But it is an individual, and does deserve a page of some kind. No need to completely throw out another editor's work, in this case. We'll know better how to handle this in a week. In the meantime, I vigorously oppose deletion. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 21:45, April 24, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I agree. Apart from the errors, the page itself is perfectly valid. I was just pointing out to the author the probable reasons someone has suggested deletion. 86.134.188.188 21:55, April 24, 2010 (UTC)

Spelling

For your information I was going to check it I just like to get my ideas down first.

Done it for you. Raven's wing 21:43, April 24, 2010 (UTC)

Added {{Gone to Pot}} tag, as numerous problems still need to be remedied. The title, the page could do with an image and/or and infobox... Tardis1963 21:24, April 27, 2010 (UTC)