Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lady of Stavoren

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 was keep the significantly improved version. - Mailer Diablo 13:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lady of Stavoren

Lady of Stavoren (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Either a fairy tale or an essay, but it isn't an encyclopedia article. Magichands 01:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete patent nonsense. i kan reed 01:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete - obvious WP:NFT material. MER-C 02:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete a blog is perhaps a more appropriate place for this. Westenra 06:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - the story is a well-known Dutch legend (see Het Vrouwtje van Stavoren) but the article is unacceptable in current form. - Jvhertum 14:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep I have done some cleanup of my own and am changing my vote to keep. - Jvhertum 11:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep for cleanup. Apparently this is a genuine folktale or regional myth. It does need to have some context added, but per Jvhertum, it is real, and this text is not useless for someone who wants to improve it. - Smerdis of Tlön 17:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. I have attempted to improve the article, adding a paragraph of context, a couple references, linked to the Dutch Wikipedia, and related the tale to the Ring of Polycrates from Herodotus. - Smerdis of Tlön 22:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Those seeking to clean it up should seek reliable, cited sources, which the "article" in its current form is most certainly not. - Chardish 18:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment As this appears to be a real legend and not nonsense, the article should not be speedily deleted. If it's not improved by the end of the AfD process, then Delete. --Charlene 21:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I searched for, found, and added significant references including Cornell University, and the BBC. While the Ghits are low for the article they are notable and wide spread.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeepday (talk • contribs)
  • Keep This appears to be a well know folk tale, and with the new references it meets WP:RS and WP:N. Edison 00:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per article improvements. Thank you for your efforts, Your Holiness. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 03:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, check the Dutch article linked; even if you can't read Dutch, this folk legend is well-known enough to warrant a statue. >Radiant< 14:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Very nice cleanup work! This is a much better article, and I now agree we should keep it. Magichands 18:10, 5 February 2007 (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.