Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carpent tua poma nepotes
 | This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2008 September 2. For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review. |
- 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. PhilKnight (talk) 18:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Carpent tua poma nepotes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Contested PROD. Wikipedia is not a dictionary and - well the article gives nothing more than a translation... Gunnar Hendrich (talk) 19:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I moved the info and soft-redirected it to the wikitionary entry. Thingg⊕⊗ 20:03, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
STOP!!! Please. I am going to EXPAND the article. Hence I marked it as a stub. I am going to tie it into the philosophy and history values of this term for Roman history -- hence the Virgil citation, and then also show how it is even used in modern popular culture, for instance, at a park in Croatia where they are use it (briefly) in the walk-around to teach children to plan with an intergenerational mindset.
Why is everyone trying to squelch and hijack an article that they didn't start? Can you hold up for even 5 minutes? Sheesh!!!! --Petercorless (talk) 20:06, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Comprimised of OR. Non-notable phrase. Tavix (talk) 21:36, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Although the article has been expanded quite a bit since it was nominated, it seems most of the new content is original research. The references are an article about Roman slavery, not about this phrase, and conspiracy theory websites. The idea that we should consider those reliable is laughable. Beeblbrox (talk) 21:47, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - what is the point of the article?? It is not notable in any sense of the word and article seems to have a lot of OR
- Delete it certainly seems like original research or WP:SYN. The quote is verifiable. The information about slavery is verifiable. but there is no sign that secondary sources have interpreted the quote to mean what the article here asserts it means. Protonk (talk) 22:11, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Deleo. This is an essay dressed up as an encyclopedia article. Original research and synthesis as well as bias. --Dhartung | Talk 01:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- The author needs to establish that this Latin tag is notable by citing authors who have used it. If this is not done before the end of the AFD period, it should be deleted. I suspect that the translation is incorrect: I thought that "nepos" means nephew not grandson and poma is probably apple (not fruit in general). I will watch for improvement and change my vote if necessary. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.