Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lübeck-Siems
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. 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. Postdlf 06:40, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Does not appear to be a valid article. Elde 15:52, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and cleanup. Needs a lot of work, but this appears to be about a major substation serving the Baltic Cable. (See also Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/GK Wien-Southeast, and note this debate has closed, although some of the housekeeping is outstanding as I write this.) Andrewa 16:49, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: And I've now done the housekeeping, correctly I hope! No change of vote. Andrewa 17:03, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and barnstars to Andrewa. Precedent for very high-volume electric distribution infrastructure is good. Samaritan 17:47, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment/question: I don't think I understand. The article name doesn't reflect the content. How about Merge with Baltic Cable then Delete? Quale 18:47, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment/another question: How would you propose to then preserve the page history, in terms of the GFDL? I'd probably support a rename, assuming that there is evidence for the new name and that it's not just a guess. Everyone please note that renames are not encouraged during a VfD discussion, but they can be discussed here or (probably better) on the article's talk page, for action afterwards assuming the article is kept. No change of vote. Andrewa 21:26, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, is Lübeck-Siems the name of a town or region of a town as well as a power substation? If the substation is the only thing given that name, fine. If I look up "Greenwich Village" I don't expect to read about infrastructure that happens to be located there, and I don't want a disambig either. Quale 01:01, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: These are good questions and good points, but not IMO relevant to the decision as to whether or not we keep this article. See talk:Lübeck-Siems. No change of vote. Andrewa 09:49, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, is Lübeck-Siems the name of a town or region of a town as well as a power substation? If the substation is the only thing given that name, fine. If I look up "Greenwich Village" I don't expect to read about infrastructure that happens to be located there, and I don't want a disambig either. Quale 01:01, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment/another question: How would you propose to then preserve the page history, in terms of the GFDL? I'd probably support a rename, assuming that there is evidence for the new name and that it's not just a guess. Everyone please note that renames are not encouraged during a VfD discussion, but they can be discussed here or (probably better) on the article's talk page, for action afterwards assuming the article is kept. No change of vote. Andrewa 21:26, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Establishment of precedent for very high-volume electric distribution infrastructure is good. Klonimus 19:16, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Gamaliel 21:31, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as real place, but move most of the content somewhere else. Kappa 00:41, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, cleanup and expand. Notable. Megan1967 04:56, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Appears to be a valid article. Maybe it needs a better title. Mirror Vax 09:51, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, or at least merge; appears to be a cut-n-paste job ofLübeck-Herrenwyk; should be merged in.
- This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.