Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quatrains of Nostradamus

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 discussion was delete. This doesn't belong here. Mackensen (talk) 23:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quatrains of Nostradamus

del. Wikipedia is not a library of kookery. A couple of historically notable examples would be enough and may well go into the Nostradamus article. But 9/11 and Indian Ocean earthquake is way overboard. `'mikka (t) 21:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. The translations aren't even good, and are specifically translated to fit their 'results'. - Che Nuevara: ^{Join the Revolution} 22:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. The user creating this and Stone of Turin (also currently under AfD) seems to have made several edits to the Nostradamus article which were reverted as effectively vandalism (unsourced POV content), so I guess these are POV forks. --DaveG12345 01:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC) - (corrected my incorrect info)--DaveG12345 17:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - both because an article about a topic doesn't mean we're saying the topic is true (e.g., ear candling) and because it isolates this from the main Nostradamus article, in a desperate attempt to keep that one relatively kook-free (which is why I created this article a year ago)(the Stone of Turin guy is somebody else). - DavidWBrooks 16:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Apologies for getting the authorship wrong.--DaveG12345 17:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • A proper way to keep an article kook-free is to mercilessly delete anything unreferenced. I am aware there is a whole "Nostradamology" here. But some "decriptions" have some historical notability and mentioned in serious print, and hence deserve to be discussed here. The rest should be barred according to wikipedia:Verifiability policy. `'mikka (t) 21:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Please note that the article isn't kookland, containing reasonable skepticism and asides like "Critics point out that the word "Germania" actually refers to a region near the Danube River that is non-contiguous with modern Germany." Improvements needed, sure, but not deletion. - DavidWBrooks 16:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wikisource. Primarily a copy of source material. Stifle (talk) 19:21, 10 July 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.