Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blemmyes


 * 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 keep. Mailer Diablo 01:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Blemmyes
This thing does not deserve to be here. It is not real creature, nor does it appear in any notable fictional world (e.g. the Lord of the Rings or Star Wars). It is not more interesting than my dog — Preceding unsigned comment added by Misterx (talk • contribs)


 * Note Incomplete AfD. Original article has not been tagged. This article was created (with no header) and added to daily AfD log by Misterx. Unsure of the procedure. Fan1967 20:21, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment I saw that too (it seems like he insterted it between two articles already nominated). I'll go ahead and add the AfD tag to the original. Darquis 21:28, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep There were myths and legends before LOTR and Star Wars, and this appears to be a pretty old one. Fan1967 20:25, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep Plinian oddity I've known about since grade school. Tell us more about your dog, though.  &middot; rodii &middot;  21:08, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep I'd like to see the article expanded more, if that's possible, but it's certainly not delete worthy (particularly not for the reasons given). Darquis 21:28, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep mythological or incorrect perceptions of the ancients is notable. Carlossuarez46 22:21, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Extremely strong keep, this was in Pliny, for Christ's sake --Deville (Talk) 02:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep, deleting it would make just as much sense as deleting The Matrix because those old Greek philosopher guys didn't discuss it back in the day =) (Where's my logic going?) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 07:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep absolutely encylcopedic subject. ergot 14:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, you can find references about Blemmyes in the Encyclopaedia Britannica. -- ReyBrujo 17:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge,this article will never be more than a stub. I propose merging it with Sciapodes and other similar stuff into a single article about strangely shaped humans in ancient legends — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.98.228.27 (talk • contribs)
 * A while ago someone might have said the same about numerous peoples who, through archaeological discovery, we now know much about: the Hittites are a perfect example; just a tribal name among many in the Bible without too much to attract attention, now we know much more. Carlossuarez46 22:19, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * So we might learn more about the Blemmyes some time?  &middot; rodii &middot;  02:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, there was a real tribe of people of that name in that area. They show up in the histories of the late empire, hundreds of years after Pliny. They did, however, actually have heads. Fan1967


 * Keep, blemmyes are referenced along with sciapods and 'panozi' (sorry, I don't know the English word) also in Umberto Eco's Baudolino, and are part of greek and medieval mythology. Most of the above comments apply, too. Mikelima 14:11, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The Latin name, "panotii", is usually used in English. Fan1967 14:52, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the translation. I have been researching a bit, and I have found an extensive thesis on medieval monster (in Italian), which cites the blemmyes (blemmii) while discussing about acephali. The english definition only marginally discusses the monsters, and the Italian definition is absent. Maybe merging the blemmyes with other acephali monsters could be a solution. The thesis cites that acephali are first cited by Erodotus. Apparently, Plinius associated a Lybian legend to an actual nomadic population. Mikelima 16:45, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep per all above. gidonb 00:41, 5 May 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.