Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Batty Langley and his Masonic Connections


 * 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   delete. NW ( Talk ) 21:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Batty Langley and his Masonic Connections

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Synthesis and original research issues aside, this is an unnecessary content fork of Batty Langley  ~DC  Talk To Me 05:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge a paragraph or two into Batty Langley, per WP:CFORK, WP:SYNTH, and possible WP:OR, as stated above. How anyone could think the alleged freemasonry of this garden designer is a proper topic for a standalone article escapes me.   Glenfarclas   ( talk ) 07:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOR, WP:SYNTH and WP:NOT. Merge first sentence of intro to Batty Langley. MuffledThud (talk) 08:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per ... well, everything mentioned above. Courtesy blank as possibly contentious? Ivanvector (talk) 09:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per above, but a courtesy blank is not needed because he's long dead. Bearian (talk) 22:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Not that I mean to disagree with you, but are you saying that biographies about the deceased can never be contentious? Ivanvector (talk) 00:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I am saying that it is per se not libelous, no real harm is being done, and there is no reason to be courteous, to a man dead for centuries. The general rule is to keep footprints -- records of past changes.  "Contentious" has no meaning in Wikipedia. See WP:5P. Bearian (talk) 20:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well I used the wrong word then, I meant to use the word that meant potentially libelous. Anyway, I think you'll agree with me that our little side discussion has no impact on this AfD? Consensus here is pretty clear. Ivanvector (talk) 02:10, 25 January 2010 (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.