Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rope stretcher

 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 Keep. R e  dwolf24  (talk) 23:59, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Rope stretcher
Reposting of material already removed in dozens of previous vfds, consisting of Rktect's original research. See for a sample of reposting. And see for a list of many vfds already deleting this. Per WP:CSD criteria G4: Speedy delete -- (drini|&#x2615;) 01:28, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per poster. Johntex 02:02, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
 * My bad - I took a closer look and the reference does not actually seem to be to a VfD. Am I missing something?  Johntex 02:12, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, if you look at the edit history on the pages listed as vfd'ed at that place, you'lll see that this is the same info that has already been deleted. -- (&#x263A;drini&#x266B;|&#x260E;) 22:17, 6 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep and clean up. Egyptian rope stretching is significant in the development of surveying, engineering, and mathematics. The small number of Google hits reflects badly on the web, not the article. Gazpacho 02:41, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep The article definitely needs work. It meanders from rope stretching to milestones. But although I'm not an expert on the subject I tend to agree with Gazpacho that it deserves an article. --DavidConrad 03:14, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Cleanup so that it is no longer than this state and protect. Rktect's verbal diarhhoea must be curbed somehow. -- RHaworth 14:02:48, 2005-08-30 (UTC)
 * Total rewrite - Get rid of all the Mille Passus stuff by Rktect. Concentrate the article on the art of rope stretchers only.  The Mille Passus stuff may be correct, but it has been written in such a confusing form that only someone who studies ancient measurements would be able to understand it.  Please, Rktect, if you're reading any of this, could you not use the abbreviated form of ancient measurements, and please include their current day metric equivolent.  Also, what is 3kr?  You say it's some ancient god, but surely, they didn't give him a name beginning with a number did they? - Hahnchen 00:04, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I believe that is an attempt to represent an IPA symbol in ASCII. I think that what is intended is &#x25C;kr (Aker?). In the Oxford Essential Guide to Egyptian Mythology (ISBN 02519096X) they show ka (life force) as k&#x25C; and ba (soul) as b&#x25C; and the goddess Isis (Aset) as &#x25C;st, as well as using the symbols &#x1E25;, &#x1E2B;, &#x1E6D;, and &#x1E0F;, among others. (Hope people can see those unicode characters.) But the convention is to mention these forms of names once initially, and then use a more common form (like Isis) throughout. Rktect should indicate more clearly when such a form is being used. --DavidConrad 08:57, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * At last! The simple short explanation that Rktect has not managed to do in all his wafflings. -- RHaworth 10:34:02, 2005-09-04 (UTC)
 * The majority of the material in this article is totally irrelevant for the subject, and is a just a copy of other pages on VfD (e.g. ), exactly as stated by Drini, so the speedy delete criteria is fullfilled. The surveyors of ancient Egypt and other cultures played an important role, so the subject is definitely worthy of an article. In my opinion it would be best to start from scratch, but if some Wikipedian declares that they are willing to do the major rework and trimming necessary to fullfill Wikipedia criterias of quality, and prepare to take the burden of keeping it that way, then the article can be kept, probably after a rename. -- Egil 08:38, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete because Rktect cannot refrain from filling the article with irrelevant nonsense, even while this vote is under consideration. At times it has been a decent article.  But unless we can keep the irrelevant stuff out I see no crying reason to keep it. Gene Nygaard 18:38, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * We can keep irrelevant stuff out. Gazpacho 21:16, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. So show me!  Gene Nygaard 22:12, 31 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment: cleaned up by Rktect, Gene, and me. Gazpacho 16:28, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep  based upon re-write. I'm sure much more verifiable, quality material can go here, as well. -  brenneman (t) (c)  04:18, 7 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.