Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mountain fold


 * 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 Origami techniques. Babajobu 01:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Mountain fold, Valley fold
WP is WP:NOT a how-to. I feel badly about this, but this is instructions for a basic fold in Origami, already covered in as much detail as is appropriate at Origami_techniques. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:51, 11 February 2006 (UTC) Thank you. (Talk) 10:45, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Ruby 14:16, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. PJM 14:17, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't feel bad. Wikipedia is not a repository for unencyclopedic crap. Delete this and delete valley fold too. The pictures would be at home in the Commons and the info could be part of an origami Wikibook. -- Krash (Talk) 16:07, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Added AfD to Valley fold. Added Valley fold to this discussion. -- Krash (Talk) 16:12, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect both to Origami_techniques. feydey 14:27, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * If it is possible to adequately convey specific origami folds through Origami_techniques, then, as the main contributor to these pages, I support the deletion of both pages. I believe, however, that if a user of Wikipedia were to search specifically for Origami_techniques, then they would be presented with a general idea with a certain vagueness, but not real information.  If these pages are deleted, I think that it is imperative that the section to which they are redirected provides more resources and detail.  I would also like to mention that the phrase "unencyclopedic crap" is mildly offensive and immediately put me into a defensive state.  I would appreciate it if work is considered as time and energy spent rather than the quality (which is subjective) that you see in the entry.


 * 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.