Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Legacy of Johns Hopkins

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 --JForget 00:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy of Johns Hopkins

This article was written as an essay and duplicates information already found in Johns Hopkins and in the other articles that reflect the "legacy" (Johns Hopkins University, Johns Hopkins Hospital, etc.). -- Atama ^chat 21:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom (I originally prodded, but this is fine). NawlinWiki (talk) 21:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redundant information and non-encyclopediac writing. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 21:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete essay Ultra! 21:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - obviously no more than an essay, also presents no more information than found in Johns Hopkins. Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 23:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because it is no more than an essay. Happyme22 (talk) 23:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Would there be any reason for a slight merge and redirect of the reliably sourced material to Johns Hopkins#The legacy of Johns Hopkins? -- saberwyn 00:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge — Any reliably sourced statement in this article that's relevant to John Hopkins#The legacy of Johns Hopkins and not already there, should be merged there. (I added a Ref section to the article so that the sourced statements are viewable.) Rosiestep (talk) 22:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, subject matter is boosterish rather than encyclopedic; any unique material should go in other articles and be linked to from biographical article; article not even properly wikified, and that no one has bothered to make even this rudimentary fix-up since the article was AfD nominated does not speak well to its prospects for future improvement. Robert K S (talk) 05:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.