Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mythical chronology of Greece (second nomination)


 * 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Mythical chronology of Greece
Article is a synthesis of primary sources, making it original research, and it doesn't take an encyclopedic approach to the subject --Akhilleus (talk) 15:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by nominator. This article was previously nominated for deletion, and the consensus at that time was keep; but most contributors thought that extensive revision was necessary to fix the article's problems. In my view, revision won't fix what's wrong here.

the article is an original synthesis of ancient chronographic sources like Jerome, Eusebius, and the Parian Marble. The article often adopts one source's date in preference to another, but gives no citations, and in fact, never indicates that these sources often disagree about the date of a particular event.

Worse, the article gives the impression that this is an authoritative timeline of Greek mythology. Someone could read this article and think that modern scholars believe that Zeus was born in 1703 BC; just recently someone referred to this article to determine Odysseus' "true" age when he reaches Ithaca. However, most experts would say that these events never actually happened, and that trying to determine their true date is silly. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete - desperately OR; an arbitrary collage, attempting to give a false idea of homogeneity.--Aldux 16:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete Wikipedia is not for something you thought up in Ancient History 201 one day. --Charlene.fic 16:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Original research. Gobawoo 16:43, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 19:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. EVula 20:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, per prior VfD. --Arcadian 21:43, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak delete relating diff Greek myths is interesting, however quality in the current article is below par; and may provide factually false information. Arnoutf 21:43, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Akhilleus. CaveatLectorTalk 21:45, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom; original research, conclusions drawn from primary sources, etc. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:32, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. However It might be nice to have an article that summarized the chronographic information given by ancient sources. Paul August &#9742; 16:35, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree, but various sources conflict on several different details. A properly cited article could very easily become an absolute nightmare, for both the editor and the reader. EVula 16:41, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Rather than a summary of chronographic information, how about an article Greek chronography which discusses the methods, assumptions, etc. of the various writers? The article would then link to Jerome, Eusebius, et al.; these articles could contain the chronologies set forth by the individual writers. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:47, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Greek chronography sounds workable, but may need a more specific title, depending on scope. Walter Siegmund (talk) 23:03, 22 October 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.