Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cretan/Spartan connection

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 of the debate was delete —Xezbeth 20:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cretan/Spartan connection

Original research. I had put a prod tag on it, but Sam Spade removed it without explanation. User:Zoe|^(talk) 17:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. While there were certainly some links between Doric Crete and Sparta, this article is a POV essay trying to argue that the societies "shared a unity of national character," whatever that means. - SimonP 19:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Abe Lincon would speedy delete this page, if he were either alive or a wikipedia admin-64.12.116.195 19:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Make an External Link It deserves to be an external link and you can vote for that.WHEELER 23:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I have no idea what that means. What do you mean, Make an External Link? User:Zoe|^(talk) 00:23, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you can Zoe vote to make an article an external link.WHEELER 00:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Please explain how this is accomplished, as I have never seen this done before. User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Here is an example for you Zoe. Here is the deletion page for "Culture defines politics" which they decided to make an external link: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Culture_defines_politics. This is the article which I discovered recently that they were trying to "wash". I created it but ****they**** deleted as "orignial research" but later on the hypocrites liked it so much that they were attempting to steal it!!!! Just like this article and the article on Revolution within the form, they will delete as "original research" and then, sometime in the future they will steal it. Or if someone else writes it, they will accept it. Me, they just hate. I could write an article on "Why the Sky is Blue" and they will delete it. See, I have a higher standard than anybody else around here, I should be proud of it, All work done by me will be deleted, nothing will satisfy them. They also deleted the Classical definition of republic as "original research". There was a comment recently posted about that Talk:Republic#Article_is_still_horrible. I think it speaks volumes about what goes on around here. Wikipedia is a popularity and ideological contest. If you don't fit in, and meet their approval---you get harrassed and your stuff gets deleted. "Merit" means nothing.WHEELER 00:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete: The subject itself presupposes a conclusion which contradicts (or bypasses) the current standard view (there have been significant developments in Aegean prehistory since the 19th century), of which there is no mention. Article takes texts at face value.--Nema Fakei 00:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Instead of voting to delete, why don't you improve the article? No article starts off being perfect, yet everything I do everybody expects it to be perfect but nobody here at Wikipedia has the same standard put to them like what is done to me. Improve the Article.WHEELER 00:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Some of the articles you've (mostly) written I would like to improve when I have the time and the resources. This one, however, I don't think can ever really approach a good and useful article. Even with a total rewrite, the name would need changing.

• Delete -- WHEELERcruft. I knew it before I even checked the article history Haikupoet 02:53, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. The article is in need of cleanup and expansion, with more input from more recent secondary sources - what is the state of current scholarship on this topic? The article should probably be moved to a new title - the name - X/X seems very unencyclopedic. An alternative would be to merge it into the existing Dorian article. --Joe 00:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOR. Stifle 11:06, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete --Macrakis 14:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I won't vouch for or against the article's accuracy or value, but I want to point out that for as long as the text is kept, the external link to Wikinfo has to be retained as well -- this is explicitly required by the GFDL, section 4F. —David Wahler (talk) 21:58, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• CommentCritical views of Wikipedia/Policy CriticismsWHEELER 00:49, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• CommentThe subject of the article is NOT original research. I quote from a published Classicist!!! He is actually responding in his quotes to earlier opinions. He proves the contention that Sparta got most of her stuff from Crete. I have of course made other deductions of value. You are free to delete those. I prefer an external link though because this of my learning in the subject area, I provide more evidence. Second, This article does fill a hole in the learning of the matrix of Dorian culture and Greek culture. This is nowhere on Wikipedia. This article is to fill a niche that you can not provide. An external link to this article is necessary and right. This article is necessary to understand What Socrates and Plato said.WHEELER 23:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WHEELER's POV-ridden essays have very little salvagable encyclopedic information. older ≠ wiser 02:03, 3 March 2006 (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.