Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Serpentine shape


 * 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   keep. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:03, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Serpentine shape

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The Lead section is a dictionary definition. The Geometry section is better described by Serpentine curve. 'In Architecture' and 'In Topography and Geoecology' sections - in the main, contain blocks of text that happen to include the adjective 'serpentine' HolsworthyDave 02:17, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Merge – Duplicates various articles. Merge the mathematical shape to Serpentine curve. Merge the University of Virginia walls to Crinkle crankle wall. Merge the London lake to Serpentine (lake). Merge the church to San Carlo alle Quattro Fontane. The rest seems to be dictionary examples. I guess there is some value in having a title on the shape itself, but the article duplicates too much text. We have a disamb page on Serpentine. The title could be redirected to Serpentine curve? Then we could keep it in the category Geometric shapes (if we keep redirects in categories). – Margin1522 (talk) 02:32, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * I am a bit inclined to keep this article. I've put a hatnote at the top linking to Serpentine, the disambiguation page, and eliminated the sentence about the mineral in the introduction.  I've also moved the terse "Geometry" section to the end, since this article is primarily about designed physical objects in architecture and landscape architecture.  The sense in which the term is used in geometry is related to the topic of this article, but is not the same thing. Michael Hardy (talk) 23:40, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:46, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Has good references, and copyediting may fix other problems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dthomsen8 (talk • contribs)
 * Keep. It's a bit of a dog's breakfast at the moment, and I really don't like it, but WP:CONCEPTDAB certainly allows for an article with this title. Done well, it could be really good. There is certainly a clear topic here, in terms of a distinct shape. All the problems can be fixed by normal editing. -- 120.17.2.182 (talk) 06:57, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it's well on the way to looking good now. -- 120.17.33.20 (talk) 23:53, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 00:36, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep This is not presented in the style of a dictionary and WP:CONCEPTDAB provides an excellent justification. Andrew D. (talk) 18:40, 26 March 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.