Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Proper names of Babylonia and Assyria


 * 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The result was Nomination withdrawn. Lot's of thanks to Codex Sinaiticus who actually did the merge. Selket Talk 16:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Proper names of Babylonia and Assyria

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Prod deleted; article has had a merge template for about a year. The talk page says that all content is redundant, but I have not investigated this claim. No opinion. Selket Talk 06:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Seems more appropriate for Wiktionary. Although a reference to a 1911 encyclopedia is made, no specific volume or page number is provided.  I believe it fails WP:A and WP:NOT. Alan.ca 06:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as Wikipedia is not an instruction manual on how to properly read and write the names of Babylonia or Assyria.-- TBC Φ  talk?  06:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge. The talk page states, "Trust me, this is straight up from the 1911 EB. In Wikipedia's infancy days, long before I got here, there was apparently this mammoth-sized 1911 article entitled 'Babylonia and Assyria' that was way out of date... Anyway, in I think approximately 2002, someone came up with the idea of splitting this behemoth up into component parts. This chunk received the title it has now: Proper names of Babylonia and Assyria. The original version was produced with scanning equipment, meaning some words were misread or appeared as jumbled symbols. Many of the vestiges of that original break-up have been more appropriately dealth with since then, but this one still has not.  That is why the best proposals so far seem to be to carefully merge anything that isn't outdated, with the abovementioned articles."  This suggests to me that there are parts of this article that have not yet been merged into the other articles on this subject.  LastChanceToBe 09:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. This article on a linguistic topic is from the 1911 Encyclopedia Brittanica.  A merge might be better, but it looks like no-one is eager to do it. Spacepotato 10:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge - I made the above-quoted comment on the talkpage yesterday, and have been in favor of merging for the last year, but this is a neglected, obscure corner of the wikipedia, and there are many more urgent priorities... Now with this sort of 'push' (wiktionary certainly is not the answer!) I will make every attempt to complete the merge myself over the next few days, before any actual info disappears down the memory hole. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 13:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It's okay, lads -- I've just gone ahead and done the merge as requested a year ago. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:27, 11 March 2007 (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.