Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/De jure Charles VIII

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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 18:09, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] De jure Charles VIII

And identical article at De jure Charles VIII of The Holy Roman Empire. An unwikified text dump that has little, if anything, to do with the title. R. fiend 13:08, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

• Very weak keep. There is a crank who calls himself that and an article about him might be worth having. This one however is nowhere near good enough. If somebody who knows more about it could do a re-write or even verify his notability then it is worth saving. Otherwise, get rid of it. Keresaspa 13:23, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  • You've called your vote a keep, but you really described a delete, as we're voting on the contents, not the title. True, there is probably potential for an article under this title, but not one remotely like this. Since if it's completely rewritten the vote will be void anyway, might you not change your vote to delete? -R. fiend 13:29, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I was hoping somebody might come along and salvage it before it is deleted, as it does have potential. That being said, I've no objections to deleting the current contents. Keresaspa 14:55, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: at least part of this article is a copyright violation. It may have been taken from multiple sources. -- Kjkolb 13:51, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I strongly doubt it's a copyvio. I would imagine that the person who inserted it is the copyright owner. john k 03:23, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Two articles with the same text means that regardless of merits, one must go. Maybe do a redirect on one article so only one AfD vote needs to be tracked for this? Kjkolb, if this is a copyvio could you slap a tag on it or on (De jure Charles VIII of The Holy Roman Empire? Beyond the fact this is a mirror of De jure Charles VIII of The Holy Roman Empire I'd probably lean delete on the text alone unless someone can establish a Joshua A. Norton level of notability.--Isotope23 15:20, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete maybe there is an interesting article to be written about the topic, but this isn't it. Keithlard 15:38, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The information is copied from [1], itself a spurious website. Olessi 16:41, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The text as it is (was?) is a complete mess, and the subject is not notable - we shouldn't have articles about every nut with a web page. john k 03:23, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Misleading (one might say intentionally deceptive) article title, amounting to one crank's "original research" (read: personal essay) justifying his pretentions. Not even a notable crank. - Nunh-huh 04:03, 6 October 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.