Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pes

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete (4D to 2non-deletes). Redwolf24 (talk) 00:07, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pes

Reposting of material already removed in dozens of previous vfds, so Speedy delete under criteria G4 in WP:CSD. See [1] for a list of many vfds already deleting this material. -- (drini|☕) 01:50, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

The reason I'm not tagging it it's because it is a controversial entry, so I wanted to go for sure with vfd. -- (drini|☕) 01:50, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

• Comment I followed the link you gave [2] I see links to stuff about an edit controversy, but no links to actual VfD votes. I may be missing it. Can you provide a more specific link, please? Johntex 02:08, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

FYI I have collected a list of the VfD for rktects articles -- Egil 04:17, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, if you look at the edit history on the pages listed as vfd'ed at that place, you'lll see that this is the same info that has already been deleted. But given Rktect's particular style of editing, it becomes a puzzle to reconstruct the info. -- (☺drini♫|☎) 22:19, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as original research. --Carnildo 04:09, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete as per Drini. -- Egil 04:17, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as original research. --Lomedae 10:56, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to PEZ as a common mis-spelling. Grutness...wha? 04:11, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Keep I am casting my vote to keep this page in its revised form. Having listened carefuly to your constructive criticism I have edited the page and removed some material. The article continues to focus on the role of the Roman foot in the establishment of the Greek Orders of Architecture and their incorporation of many ancient standards of measure into pleasing canons of proportion. This is not original research but represents research that goes back at least to Palladio and Viruvius. It is not a mispelling of PEZ. It is not a reposting of material covered elsewhere. It is just some stuff you may not have learned yet. Rktect 17:36, September 1, 2005 (UTC) I'm curious why when other encyclopedias have this article, Wikipedia doesn't need it. Rktect 02:28, September 3, 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.