Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lemuria as the Homeland of Dragons and Naga
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 03:10, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
Chock full of weasel words, original research, and pure, unsupported nonsense held by a vast minority. At most it should probably be deleted, and at the very least, completely rewritten. --brian0918™ 04:22, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Keep --Atun There is no reason for this page to be deleted. It was created recently, and I am working to extensively revise it. It is being updated regularly, and growing into a more acceptable article. Remove it from the 'Deletion' page until it is finished. Then make your judgements. Perhaps after the page is finished, we can decide whether to break it up and move the information to other articles. At this time it is easier to upload this stuff to this article. The article can be fixed in more minor ways, such as the title, after it has been completed in some acceptable form.
- Delete. The material on Australian aborigines claiming to sight dinosaur-like creatures, however, should be transferred to a new article focusing on such sightings in the Australian region. What remains could be incorporated into Lemuria (continent) and Naga (mythology). Decius 04:38, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC) The Lemuria (continent) article is very short and incomplete, and I've incorporated some elements from User:Atun's article into Lemuria (continent). There is no need for two Lemuria articles. Transfer what can be transferred to various articles. Decius 04:58, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC) Cryptozoology is not the place for detailing the Australian cases. The Australian cases should be collected in a new article. Decius 05:45, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, the Lemuria part of the title has nothing to do with the rest of the material, which could be better placed into Cryptozoology. RickK 04:43, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete agree with Rick. JamesBurns 05:22, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Delete original research bordering on patent nonsense. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 07:14, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Some of the "original research" may have value, in that it brings together *real* research from disparate sources. The author should be let complete his text (within reasonable time) and the totlaity can then be edited, or reshuffled into t=wherever people think it should be, with any stubs elided away. --Simon Cursitor 08:00, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Kind of interesting, but definitely falls under original research. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 09:43, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete - tries to catch too much, making it an essay instead of an article - not unlike an article on The Pacific Ocean as the Home of Sea Serpants and Mermaids would be. -- BD2412 talk 16:06, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)
- Delete. Original research that's questionable at best. -- Hadal 03:17, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Delete and ruminate on meaning of vast minority. Dystopos 14:51, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.