Talk:Oetosyrus

Contested deletion
This article should not be speedy deleted as lacking sufficient context to identify its subject, because... (i haven't looked for additional material to add to the article yet from other sources) --Whalestate (talk) 00:10, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Then please find more sources to expand your article by adding more content. The current word count is very insufficient for any topic. Callmemirela  ( talk ) 00:18, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * yes i'm looking for material currently Whalestate (talk) 00:20, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Good. Ping me back when you've added content so I can review if I can remove the CSD template (unless an admin does it before me). Callmemirela  ( talk ) 00:24, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Merge
This article just needs to be merged with Scythian religion, because there is just nothing more to say than "Oetosyrus is the Scythian Apollo". Almost all of the sources said the same thing with little more to offer than that. Psychotic  Spartan  123  11:57, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It's been redirected now. Callmemirela  ( Go Habs Go! ) 22:09, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


 * : I can't really include you in this Mirela since you're some-what more innocent I'm presuming, but in truth I don't know, in any case - It's really great! thanks, so nice to see you both followed a reasonable way of proceeding and included myself in the Talk - there is just nothing more to say than "Oetosyrus is the Scythian Apollo" what about ? > With regards specifically to animal-worship, Rudenko (Russian: Руденко) cites Lappo-Danilevsky as considering the griffin to represent an attribute of Oetosyrus (ref. Сергей Иванович Руденко). It's nice to see the article butchered, well done you both! but I don't see the material (Сергей Иванович Руденко) included. Perhaps someone might see fit to include that also. Whalestate (talk) 23:52, 15 May 2015 (UTC)


 * you know - here's a little bit of wisdom for you both, apparently, though I don't know if it's true: it is more easy to do bad things than it is to do good. Perhaps some-one might exercise some restraint next time since, who really needs to bother to hurry to delete a legitimate article? especially since no care was taken to retain valuable information... which someone (say one scholar / professor / university student some-where might have needed, which now is gone). I suppose I should forgive you both though, since because of this - Socrates " believed that wrongdoing and behaviour that was not virtuous resulted from ignorance, and that those who did wrong knew no better." ... although contrary to this, who of the 3 of us really thinks to omit material or information without due care is acceptable in a project which is motivated to do the opposite? Whalestate (talk) 00:03, 16 May 2015 (UTC)


 * > "... I don't if the move should be made right away or we should consult other involved editors?..." Whalestate (talk) 00:09, 16 May 2015 (UTC)