Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parthenon Day


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 03:11, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Parthenon Day

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Subject fails GNG. With all those links in the "Reference" section, it looks impressively sourced at first, but when you click on the links to the sources, it soon becomes apparent that only one of them actually mentions this "Parthenon Day", and it's the one that belongs to an organization promoting it. The rest of them are sources about the Parthenon or the larger dispute between the UK and Greece over the Elgin Marbles that don't mention this event. Google searches also confirm, as searches for "Parthenon Day" bring up things like these  from regular Google, this  from Google News, and these    from Google Books. Egsan Bacon (talk) 17:18, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * delete nn. When deleted the description of the marbles, the article basically becomes empty. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:05, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete No evidence that the "day" is much of a thing, and the information consists of a single web page. I don't doubt that there was activity that day, but it doesn't seem to have gained great attention. The plight of the Elgin Marbles and the request for their return is well known and the article Elgin Marbles covers that sufficiently. A link to this "day" could be added there, but probably is not really needed. LaMona (talk) 22:17, 13 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment - This particular term appears to be the invention of one author and was not widely used. However, it is probably be wise to mention the 1997 official request in the marbles' article, which is not done at current. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:26, 15 May 2015 (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.