Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Academy


 * 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 was speedy keep. North America1000 02:25, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Academy

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unclear scope, overlapping substantially with other better defined articles: Academia, Academy of science, Learned academy, National academy, Plato's Academy. This article should be a redirect to main topic or a disamb page at most. Talk:Academy is particularly telling about WP:CHIMERA. Fgnievinski (talk) 01:42, 18 May 2015 (UTC) Fgnievinski (talk) 01:42, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep The concept "academy" is distinct from "academia", & the other specific usages listed by the nominator. Interwiki links show that there is a distinct concept behind the word -- enough that simply providing a link to an essay is not a sufficient argument. Just because an article is poorly organized does not mean the subject is not notable. -- llywrch (talk) 03:50, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Would you be able to define the concept that you have in mind? If so, it'd deserve to be split under a more distinctive title, e.g., Academy (concept). Current incoming links are so disparate they'd benefit from a forced WP:FIXDABLINKS. Fgnievinski (talk) 04:19, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I might be able to if I wanted. But that would not help to keep this article. I agree with Andrew below, that the article is valid, while you seem intent on deleting it for some reason you aren't sharing with us. -- llywrch (talk) 17:29, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The current article is so ill defined I'm basically proposing to WP:Blow it up and start over -- WP:NORESCUE! Fgnievinski (talk) 18:17, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If you want to do that, just write your new version in draft space, & when your version is ready replace the current content with it in a single edit. I've done exactly that with several articles over the years. Deleting the article means all of the previous versions -- good, bad, & indifferent -- are lost, maybe for good. Listing the article here at AfD is like trying to kill a fly with a sledgehammer. -- llywrch (talk) 20:12, 18 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. Seems to have a stand alone notability as a concept. No good merge target that I see has been proposed, nor justified by sources. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:59, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, what concept do you have in mind? If it's any of those defined in Academy, they should be split off into their own articles; WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Fgnievinski (talk) 18:17, 18 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep The page is valid and helpful per WP:CONCEPTDAB. Andrew D. (talk) 12:29, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree there might be a WP:Broad concept article veiled behind the current article, but it'll grow faster if we WP:Delete the junk, move Academy (disambiguation) over here, and tag it with Dabprimary if necessary. Fgnievinski (talk) 18:17, 18 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep – agree with Andrew (no relation), article is a significant parent. Clean-up is more appropriate than a delete.-- &#9790;Loriendrew&#9789;  &#9743;(ring-ring)  16:12, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If by "significant concept" you mean WP:Primary concept, I beg to differ. As per Academy, there are several definitions, at least three of them arguably very common. Fgnievinski (talk) 18:17, 18 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Withdraw nomination (I'm the original proposer). I'll follow 's suggestion and draft a new version from scratch. I didn't realize that blanking & replacing an entire article is preferable to deletion because then the editting history is not lost. Thanks for weighing in. Fgnievinski (talk) 20:53, 18 May 2015 (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.