Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Centaur art

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 delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 11:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Centaur art

Centaur art (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Origial Resarch about artwork depicting centaurs. Unverifiable. Largely unsourced. 3 rambling pages from a previous seeming problem user, no links to this article, and no other (non-bot) edits. Twredfish 06:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - not much out there on Google. MER-C 06:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not enough content to warrant a separate article from centaur. I'd suggest merging to centaur, but its a train-wreck at the moment that doesn't need any more unverified content than it already has. Please note that the reference about the purported origins of centaur myth in this "centaur art" article is a link to an essay on a student's personal website, not any actual official university publication or research. Serpent's Choice 07:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Any page containing the word "complexification" should probably be eliminationisated too. --Folantin 09:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Rather off topic, but most of them use it in a specific mathematical context: Complexification, Linear complex structure, List of simple Lie groups, Representations of the Lorentz group, Clifford algebra, Spinor, Euler class, Edge-of-the-wedge theorem, Lorentz invariance in loop quantum gravity, Biquaternion, Symplectic group, Pontryagin class, Hodge theory, Kac–Moody algebra, and Complex conjugate representation. Other articles using the word are: NeuroEvolution of Augmented Topologies (is this spam?), Functionalism (sociology), Noosphere, The Timeless Way of Building, List of important publications in sociology (title of a referenced publication), and Novelty theory (does this meet inclusion standards?). Just so you know; we can now resume this AfD already in progress. Serpent's Choice 10:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, packed with original research. Would set an extremely bad precedent if kept, leading to dozens of similar crufty articles, Mermaid art, Vampire art, etc.--Nydas^(Talk) 10:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, there is a Mermaid art article... by the same editor. Hmmm.--Nydas^(Talk) 10:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Nominated Mermaid art and Lamia art too, on the 12th. Didn't seem right to tack on to this one, given review already in process, but grouped those two together on the next day's AFD page.Twredfish 01:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - though centaur erotica? Lol!! Moreschi 13:10, 12 December 2006 (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.