Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orford Castle

Orford Castle
Orford Castle was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. 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 keep.

(since rewritten, so vfd request withdrawn) User:Deus Ex says this is a joke (in the edit history). User:Infrogmation removed the speedy delete tag, so I thought I would bring the article here. Thue | talk 14:05, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Another of the users articles is being deleted as a joke: Votes for deletion/Jesse eisenhour. I am leaning towards a speedy delete. Thue | talk 14:13, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Orford Castle is worthy of an entry, but this is not that article. I am prepared over the next day or so to write up a better entry and replace this. Dabbler 14:19, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Cool :). If the current content is nonsense then it can be speedy deleted so that it won't clutter up the history. Thue | talk 15:38, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete this article as soon as possible, and I'll happily help write a proper article. It is clear nonsense - the real Orford Castle was built in the 12th century by Henry II positioned for coastal defence and to uphold royal authority in a region with a fair number of castles owned by the nobility. Average Earthman 16:46, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment: We haven't as a policy bothered to clean up histories in the past, even if the contained copyvios. This was a joke, the picture was of a real estate listing in Minnesota. But the best outcome is a good stub or article about the real castle. No vote as yet. Andrewa 19:07, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Since the article in question is a joke, it falls under the nonsense clause of speedy delete. So we can speedy delete it if we think it is appropriate, no? Of course we hope for a better article there, but that is an unrelated issue. Thue | talk 21:12, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment: We certainly can do this, but there's no reason to that I can see. It's far better just to fix it, as Dabbler has offered to do (and so can anyone else). Still no vote. Andrewa 03:08, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * To me it is completely obvious that rewriting and removing the joke from article history is better than just rewriting, though rewriting is far the most important point. Anyway, it has been rewritten now and from this point we can't remove a subset of the article history. Good work Capitalistroadster :). Thue | talk 12:30, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. I have deleted the nonsense article with an article about the real Orford Castle. It is a significant part of English heritage with a notable history. Dabbler and others are welcome to add to it Capitalistroadster 11:15, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Good work. Next, anyone know anything about Framlingham Castle? Andrewa 16:33, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Excellent work.  [[User:GRider|GRider\talk]] 18:26, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.