Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/STREONESHALH

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 KEEP and clean up. — JIP | Talk 07:36, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] STREONESHALH

personal essay, copyvio -- (☺drini♫|☎) 19:03, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

• I think it very likely that the contributor is the original author, in which case a removal of the copyright notice is all that is needed to avoid copyvio. No vote yet. DJ Clayworth 19:24, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • It would need more than a removeal of a copyright notice -- it would need an explicit GFDL release, or a PD statement. But if the contributor is the author, those are perfectly possible. DES ^(talk) 20:08, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

The main issue is original research -- (☺drini♫|☎) 20:06, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to Whitby. Current article appears to be largely comprised of an original research paper on the etymology of the name.--Isotope23 19:23, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
• As a new contributor (and the original author), I am not yet fully aware of all the Wikipedia conventions. I have removed the personal references and copyright notice (these were copied and pasted from a previous article). I hope this means the article can stay as it does bring together a number of accepted and important, little known pieces of information (sources supplied in text) --CW - U.T. 19:37, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
• Double underlined and emphasised Keep and cleanup. Move to Streonsalh and add on info about contemporary village. David | Talk 20:16, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but rewrite/cleanup and cite sources and references used to write article. — Wackymacs 20:18, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep information and cleanup as per David and Wackymacs Dlyons493 20:58, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep with cleanup per above editors. WCFrancis 01:56, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep (delete reasons given above are reasons for cleanup, not deletion) ··gracefool |☺ 07:42, 26 September 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.