Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laser scanning at Stonehenge

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 keep. Ichiro 05:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Laser scanning at Stonehenge

Non-notable. At very least, merge into Stonehenge and clean-up ComputerJoe 20:46, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep or Delete if you must, just don't merge I copied this out of the Stonehenge article as it was getting too big - there is an awful lot to write about the place. Merging it back in would just bulk out that page all over again. adamsan 20:50, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: It's not that big and could (should) be merged back. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 20:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Question. Is there a limit on article size? What is it? Where can I read more? Why let technical limitations effect the style and organization of the encyclopedia? -- Mikeblas 00:51, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Ideally, anything c. 30 Kb+ needs to be examined to see if it can be broken up, see WP:SIZE adamsan 00:55, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment The thing is, Stonehenge is 46Kb even without this. By all means vote to delete it as I don't think it adds anything to the article that couldn't be said in a sentence, merging it back in just wastes a load more valuable bytes I could use to say other things about the monument in my view. Vote changed to reflect comment. adamsan 20:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, as the Stonehenge article is 41 kilobytes long, and this info needs to be place somewhere. Carioca 22:50, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per Carioca --RBlowes 23:44, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment If it's kept, I think it could use an intro paragraph that puts it in the context of Stonehenge. Right now, it kind of reads as if it was janked out of the middle of the Stonehendge article, which it probably was Crunch 01:10, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per Carioca. As Crunch says it needs an introductory parargraph and a bit of tidying up RicDod 11:21, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, and update per Crunch. It's fine to split off stuff when an article is too big. Stifle 23:33, 15 January 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.