Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mille passus

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 11:02, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Mille passus
This is the same information dumping of already deleted content on many previous vfds of Rktect entries, most of the article does not even deal with the Mille passus supposed measurement standard. Delete -- &lt; drini | &part;drini &gt; 19:24, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Now Im voting speedy delete per criteria G4 in WP:CSD. -- (drini|&#x2615;) 01:47, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

His last edit removed the most substantive part of the articleRktect 02:38, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
 * There is no reason to delete this page. It was only recently created and is still being edited. User drini regularly removes content making the page appear very different than it actually is.
 * It was rather a different page until you removed half the article. If you are going to slap a vfd tag on a page at least have the intellectual honesty not to remove its content and then pretend it is something it isn't. That's just slimey and its not the only page you have done that to.
 * Comment Rktect, considering the article history clearly shows that the only thing Drini did was add a vfd to the page, I think we can judge relative honesty here with a fair amount of ease. Caerwine 05:35, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I see, so all the red lines that indicate content the article previously pointed to on other pages that have been deleted along with their images and references and content don't count? Take a look at his contributions and you may get a better idea of what I think he's done.Rktect 06:04, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * Even if true, and frankly I don't feel like spending the time to check on that right now, it doesn't affect this article in the least. If the information was vital to this subject, it should have been included in this article to begin with. What I see in the article is a bunch of messy writing that takes the POV that a particular theory about how certain length units originated is undisputed fact.  (Couldn't you at least spell league correctly?) The article dealing with that theory, Pseudoscientific metrology, can use the portions that can't be moved into the appropriate articles on ancient measurements that present the bald facts of how units within a particular system relate to one another without speculations into their ultimate origins. Caerwine 14:42, 27 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Merge with Pseudoscientific metrology (which is currently subject to its own vfd, but seems likely to emerge with a consensus of keep) as this article appears to be just a recitation of various measurement schemes fitting under that article. Caerwine 05:35, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I have now replaced some of the material which belongs in this page referencing one of the routes for which the Roman Mile markers were actually preceeded by Egyptian 10 stadia markers that date back to the late bronze age.Rktect 20:02, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete - the same content has previously been on Vfd in more than 20 cases: User:Egil/Sandbox/rktect. -- Egil 15:00, 27 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Please list the articles which contain all the information this article has on the degree.
 * The mille passus and various referenced stadia are the most common divisions of a degree.
 * Which one, stadia, mille passus or degree was defined first?
 * When?
 * If this article is deleted tell me where else in wikipedia I can find answers to those questions.
 * You claim there are at least 20 places, quote an answer to those questions from any one.
 * If you can't do that then your claim is false and this article should not be deleted. Rktect 12:32, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

interesting and informative information and graphics.Rktect 21:25, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. *drew 01:51, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Rather than argue that the page is worth reading I have added to its knowledge base a bit more
 * Delete as original research. --Carnildo 03:10, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
 * In what way is this extensively referenced article "original research"? Rktect 12:19, August 30, 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete. Anything that can be salvaged should be merged with Pseudoscientific metrology, as per Egil and Caerwine above. I note that the irrelevant images have been reinstated since I deleted them. Ian Cairns 20:11, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
 * - comment: blank space left here for the obligatory riposte - Ian Cairns 20:11, 30 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment While a single article about all this would be encyclopedic and desirable, it is abundantly clear that Mille passus is the wrong name for it and that Rktect is unable to write about it in a style that is comprehensible to others or to follow Wiki-standards of formatting and organization. Caerwine 17:05, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * There are hundreds of different ancient measures which each deserve their own article. Why don't you pick one, write an article in a style you feel is comprehensible to others and show me how you think it should be done? Rktect 18:41, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * Why don't I? Two reasons. First, by and large, when considered in isolation, potential articles on the hundreds of ancient measures are little more that dictonary definitions that may be suitable for inclusion in the Wiktionary. It's only when considered as a system that they reach the level of being ecyclopedic instead of dictionaric.  Second, I don't have access to reliable sources that would enable me to write an article on this topic.  Caerwine 20:07, 3 September 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.