Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Self fashioning

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 to Self-fashioning. My British English would have the hyphen, so that's where I'll redirect to, but it's not important. The two articles are essentially identical, and it looks like someone just didn't know how to make a redirect. -Splash^talk 18:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Self fashioning

Delete original research without references. No major edits in 11 months.--Porturology 00:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect with Self-fashioning on the basis that it appears to be an actual Renaissance-era practice.[1] There need to be more citations, however, but the term appears notable and historical. Aplomado - UTC 00:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep (edit conflict) It needs work and references, but I find a number of references that seem to verify what the article says (one in King Lear even). – Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 00:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect. —Eternal Equinox | talk 00:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Merge with the other article. They both need a major rewrite. This was apparently an actual practice, but I know little more about it after reading the article. Carlo 00:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• The most obvious merge and redirect I've seen in a while. Alba 00:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I was unaware of the other article. Both are poorly written but at least Self-fashioning is referenced. I think merge and redirect is the best solution.--Porturology 01:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per Aplomado - Oscar Arias 01:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect since it is almost exactly the same article -- Astrokey44|talk 03:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect almost a duplicate. --Terence Ong 05:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and comment per above with merge, and just because there has been no major edits for 11 months isn't criteria for deletion Nick Catalano _contrib ^talk 12:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per Terence Ong. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 14:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect and merge as above. ProhibitOnions 21:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per above. --AaronS 22:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge/Redirect as above. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 11:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Pileon merge/redirect... but definitely do not count this as a straight delete, the article has sources and it's an encyclopedic concept. ++Lar: t/c 03:08, 22 March 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.