Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mythopoesis

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 redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 15:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mythopoesis

Split from nom for Dave Alber, M.A. as the issues seem separate. DES (talk) 16:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments moved from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dave Alber, M.A.

  • I am also nominating Mythopoesis, for the above reasons. Delete both. Lukas (T.|@) 14:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Well okay, but "Mythopoesis" is a real term that was coined by, I think, CS Lewis. Deleting this guy sounds fine.--T. Anthony 15:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I wouldn't mind keeping Mythopoesis as a redirect to Mythopoeic literature, now that you mention it. Perhaps we should separate the discussions for the two entries, after all. A bit unorthodox, but is it okay if I just introduce subsection headings for the two? Sorry for the confusion. Lukas (T.|@) 15:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

comments after the split:

  • I have removed the advertisign links. Absent these, thsi is a reasoanble topic, although the present article needs considerable improvement. Keep and cleanup, although i wouldn't object to a redirect to Mythopoeic literature, as suggested above. DES (talk) 16:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I believe this violates the WP:NOR policy. Atrian 20:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
It might. My only objection on the previous was dealt with on finding the article Mythopoeic literature. This might be a slightly different topic, but if so the non-original stuff could just be merged or something.--T. Anthony 03:13, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Clarify my vote, after this discussion: Redirect to Mythopoeic literature. Not much non-OR stuff here that would be worth merging. Lukas (T.|@) 22:19, 4 February 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.