Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Latin Alphabet: Circumstantial Evidence for Egyptian Origin

Latin Alphabet: Circumstantial Evidence for Egyptian Origin
Latin Alphabet: Circumstantial Evidence for Egyptian Origin was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. 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 delete.


 * Original research. And bad one. --Pjacobi 13:58, 2004 Dec 26 (UTC)
 * delete Original Nonsense. adamsan 14:12, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * delete Matt 14:17, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Elf-friend 14:26, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, bad original research. Shame, because some effort seems to have been put in. Rje 14:55, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: There are some folks who will devote endless hours to a proposition, so long as it gives the thrill of secret knowledge. (Original research.)  Geogre 16:15, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Adam Bishop 17:03, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. I love bad research. I particularly love the bad research of Albert Einstein, Charles Darwin and Galileo, and many others who were confidently dismissed in their time. But fortunately, we don't need to waste time trying to decide whether this is good research or bad, because either way it doesn't belong here. Andrewa 17:29, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Nobody ever accused Darwin of "bad research." He was an obsessively meticulous researcher and even those who disagreed with him acknowledged the quality of his research work, particularly his taxonomy. The disputes over Darwin's work were entirely to do with the interpretation of his findings. To compare him with this fool is quite insulting. Adam 01:29, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Oh dear. To my mind, there is a case to be made that the Byblos syllabic scripts were influenced by Egyptian hieratic script (hieroglyphics being somewhat cumbersome for everyday use), which in turn is likely to have led to a Semitic - Greek - Etruscan - Roman progression over the next 1200 years or so. This article doesn't make that case, however, even remotely. Delete. Fire Star 17:47, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. No original research. Nothing more need to be said. -- llywrch 21:01, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Original research. As for the merits of the hypothesis, "circumstantial evidence" says it all&mdash;this conclusion is a real stretch.   &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 21:18, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. No original research, particularly when it is this bad. Jayjg  | Talk 23:11, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * OK, so everyone agrees it should be deleted. When is it actually going to be deleted? Adam 07:37, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * After the usual fice days. We never have been able to get general consenus to hasten the process even when consensus on a particular article is obvious. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:57, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
 * MOTION TO DELAY DELETION: This is no joke: The article is currently under review by the editors of Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.. — Roylee  :)
 * This plea is from 4.241.219.143, and is the only edit from that user. It is unlikely that such an article is of any interest to a serious researcher. Fire Star 05:42, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Delete. Cries out for speedy deletion. It's absurd that there's no policy that would permit this. - Nunh-huh 06:21, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. No redeeming characteristics in this piffle. Evertype 15:59, 2004 Dec 28 (UTC)
 * Delete. It doesn't belong in Wikipedia, but I wish there were a place to preserve some examples like this. I think it would have great pedagogical value. Also I think a considered delay is appropriate even for "obvious" cases such as this. --agr 18:30, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. I can't decide if this is a hoax, or actual original research, but it definitely fails as either.  Edeans 02:00, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, poorly researched. Megan1967 02:22, 30 Dec 2004 (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 on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.