Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scythian art

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. —Korath (Talk) 05:29, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Scythian art

This article is basically nothing more than a definition of what Scythia is plus several external links. Dictdef + link farm, two offenses. I saw this last night, and waited 24 hours to see if it got expanded, but nothing more was done to it. RickK 07:40, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep -- While that may be so at the moment I feel that there is an article in there waiting to be written. However I take your point about dictdef etc, so for the moment the article should be redirected to Scythia which actually has more on Scythian art than this article does. -- Derek Ross | Talk 07:47, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

*Merge and redirect to Scythia. If that page gets so long it needs to be broken up, then Scythian art can be reinstated as a separate article. --Angr 08:23, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)Keep in light of the rewrite and the fact that RickK has withdrawn his nomination. --Angr/_(comhrá) 21:15, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep -- It has great potential. I do not mind seeing Scythia broken up with some of its contents placed in the new article Paradiso 08:27, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, agree entirely with Paradiso. Kappa 09:49, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge per Angr. Radiant_* 10:57, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
• 'Keep per Paradiso. P Ingerson 12:17, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• At the moment, there is frankly nothing here. A quick google search shows there are books on Scythian art, and the Russians have a rather large amount, but we have much more on Scythian art in the Scythia article. If someone expands on this article before the VfD periods expires, then good, because an article on this topic is clearly possible, but right now I'd say merge and redirect. Average Earthman 15:22, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Good expansion has been performed, strong keep. Average Earthman 16:46, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and allow for organic growth. Appreciate the nominator giving this subject an initial 24 hours to expand, but apparently it needs more time. --GRider\^talk 21:42, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep and expand. Eminently notable article subject.--Gene_poole 01:29, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect: Someone tell me where the Scythians were, so that I can go explore their art. Right. Well, when this fabled people is so hard to pin down that we don't even know for sure where they were, I don't really see a major "art" article needing to be splintered off. Geogre 03:23, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. I have expanded the article greatly. Encyclopædia Britannica (our new owners:>)) consider Scythian art to be sufficiently notable to warrant an article of its own. [1] The Hermitage Museum in St Petersburg has an extensive collection. There have been a number of significant archaelogical discoveries in recent years shedding new light on Scythian art. There was a major exhibition of Scythian jewellery called Scythian Gold from Ukrainian museums that toured North America in the past few years and a quick search shows that there have been a number of books written by reputable scholars on Scythian artwork in recent years. I believe that an encyclopedia aiming to be a comprehensive work should offer articles on the art of all significant cultures throughout history including the Scythians. Capitalistroadster 11:14, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• STRONG KEEP - excellent expansion. -- 8^D ^gab 14:49, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)

Excellent rewrite. I withdraw the nom. Please note that my nomination was not based on some feeling that the subject was not notable, but merely that the article was not the article that the subject deserved. RickK 21:08, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

• Yes and you deserve credit for doing so. It is far better to have these articles fixed than to have substubs on notable subjects sticking around on the system for months. Capitalistroadster 00:41, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. —Seselwa 10:26, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Strong keep. The article as revised is encyclopedic and the topic definitely worthy. --Onlyemarie 21:16, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Extreme keep. Excellent rewrite, its a shame it had to be threatened with deletion to improve. —RaD Man (talk) 00:44, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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.