Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Older Parthenon

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 Keep JodyB_talk 02:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Older Parthenon

This article, originally created by me as a sub-section on the Parthenon article, is a redundant split from that article. It was created without consensus or discussion and defeats the purpose of my original work, which was to give historical context to the building of the Parthenon. The sub-section has now been restored, this article should be deleted. Twospoonfuls 13:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This should be a sub-article of Parthenon, in accordance with summary style. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note Arguably, if the nominator is factually correct, the article qualifies under CSD G6. However, I agree with Akhilleus that we have a valid content fork here. Shalom ^Hello 16:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Parthenon. The original article is not so huge as to require splitting off this amount of information. Otto4711 16:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If Parthenon is properly written, it will be much larger and this article will need to be split off again. As the article is now, I don't really think that the (old) dispute between Dorpfeld and Dinsmoor whether there were one or two proto-Parthenons belongs in the main article anyway--a full reporting of this dispute, going up to present theories about the proto/pre/Older Parthenon(s) and its/their influence on the building we see now will be far more detailed than the present "Older Parthenon" article. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Keep. The subject is clearly notable, and even if the content is redundant, it can serve as a kernel of a more thorough discussion. --Javits2000 16:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't dispute for a monent that there is considerably more to be said about the pre-Parthenon(s). However, my understanding is that Dorpfeld is the consensus view amongst archaeologists and Dinsmoor is the heterodox opinion, but it is not an "old" dispute in the sense of having been definitively decided. As always in classical archaeology there is a modest tray of evidence and a substantial slagheap of conjecture, so to suggest, as the truncated main article sub-section does, that the issue is settled would be actively misleading. Context is essential here, which is why I tried to sketch the main physical evidence for the thing and the principal theories about it. For this reason I cannot agree to abbreviating the sub-section, and if the sub-section remains as I wrote it what is the point of this daughter page? Now if anyone were willing to do some research into the subject and significantly expand this page (I am not) then I'd agree I would be worth keeping. Twospoonfuls 18:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. -- John Vandenberg 23:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I cannot be objective as the creator of this article per WP:SS (based on the work of Twospoonfuls), but I do believe that it is a notable encyclopedic topic that can easily support a separate article.--Yannismarou 13:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 21:23, 6 July 2007 (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.