Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/English Project
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 of the debate was delete. W.marsh 01:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] English Project
Judging from the edit history this is a class project on the history of Impressionism; while the result is excellent, it is inappropriately titled, and completely duplicates the material already found in Impressionism. There is no extra content to merge, and a redirect would be misleading. Ziggurat 02:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete for assuming Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Eddie.willers 03:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as clearly does not belong here. May want to inform editors so they can keep their work as it does not look bad. However, Wikipedia is not a webhost and the page title is misconceived and the content is redundant due to the presence of Impressionism. Jammo (SM247) 03:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete,
fails WP:NFT,redundant to Impressionism. --Coredesat 07:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think WP:NFT applies, as this is a research project on a legitimate topic rather than some random topic made up in school. Nevertheless, Ziggurat 08:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment It doesn't fail WP:NFT, but would this be considered an indiscriminate source of information, instead? Either way, it's still redundant. --Coredesat 22:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oh, it's a clear content fork, and would make an excellent start to an article if there weren't one on the topic already. I'm not suggesting it shouldn't be deleted (I nom'd it, after all!), just that WP:NFT is kinda for something else. Sorry if I come across as nitpicky. Regards, Ziggurat 22:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment It doesn't fail WP:NFT, but would this be considered an indiscriminate source of information, instead? Either way, it's still redundant. --Coredesat 22:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, homework, redundant with Impressionism. - Motor (talk) 08:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Wikipedia is not the place to post homework assignments unless they are encyclopedic and not duplicates and mistitled. Wikipedia is not a webhost either. Offer a copy of their work and remove it. - Mgm|(talk) 09:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, but let the editors know so they save their work. -- Irixman (t) (m) 14:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- Note I copied the article to User:Irixman/English Project. -- Irixman (t) (m) 14:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - Wikipedia is not a project web server. --WinHunter (talk) 00:34, 21 June 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.
