Talk:Dandes of Argos

Sources

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Please reach a consensus as to whether this page should also be merged to Olympic winners of the Stadion race, or if there is sufficient sourcing that a standalone article is appropriate. Sam Walton (talk) 09:53, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

• Need to see excerpted sources - Per the consensus outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pantacles of Athens, 35 or more of the identified articles are to be merged to Olympic winners of the Stadion race. Notwithstanding that "merge" outcome, it has been suggested that this article about Dandes might be suitable for continuing as a stand-alone article. In order to better determine whether or not it should be a stand-alone, we need to evaluate whether the coverage in the cited references is significant or not as described the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG. Because the cited references are not on-line sources, those editors who are in favor of keeping this subject as a stand-alone article are hereby requested to copy and paste the relevant excerpts regarding Dandes from the cited references to this talk page. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 10:45, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
• Merge Low level of coverage that does not warrant its own article – easily possible to summarise the remaining information into the list article as notes. SFB 20:13, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
• Merge. I understand that the subject of this article has had more written about him than the others previously nominated but I wouldn't call it significant enough coverage to warrant a standalone article. Keep in mind that I have no prejudice against simply copy-pasting the information on this page to a list article. Pishcal — ♣ 00:44, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge The poem about Dandes of Argos as well as what appears to be some commentary on it can be found here: . Its in Greek, a language I cannot read, so I'm unable to tell how much this contributes to the article. Now, my main concern is preserving encyclopedic content. I'll support keeping this article, especially if the Greek source turns out to be worthwhile. However, I'll also support merging it back into Olympic winners of the Stadion race on the condition that all encyclopedic information is preserved and it is does in a way that looks neat and tidy. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:30, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
• Keep -- This is just enough content to merit a freestanding article. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:55, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

• @Dirtlawyer1, Peterkingiron, Spirit of Eagle, and Sillyfolkboy: Merge seems to be the consensus here, so if none of you have any objections I will be merging this article to Olympic winners of the Stadion race. Just thought I'd notify you. Thanks, Pishcal — ♣ 01:46, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Is there any way to get the source I listed looked at? No objection to merging, but I'm hesitant to do so when there is still a source in the air. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:34, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

@Spirit of Eagle: User:Jpbrenna apparently has some ability to read and write ancient Greek, based on today's discussion comments @ Talk:Olympic winners of the Stadion race. I suggest you ping him there. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:44, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Jpbrenna recently expanded the article, in part with the poem contained in the source I listed. At this point, I think Dandes of Argos should be kept due to his numerous athletic victories, influence on Greek poetry and the references to him in historical records. Jpbrenna also indicated in an edit summary that he is able to expand the article further, so I ultimately think that this article is expansive enough and shows enough impact to be kept. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 22:48, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

@Pishcal and Sillyfolkboy: Does this change your votes? Sam Walton (talk) 23:00, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Actually, Spirit of Eagle, the source that you linked to presents fragments of Greek poetry by Hipponax preserved by Stobaeus with commentary in Latin and variant readings recorded below them. One of the fragments uses the adjective ἀργός, which means "slow" or "late" – not Άργος, the city of Argos – and is referring to Chronos, the god of time. The poem means something like "And not let Father Time flee by you (too) late" i.e. "Life is short, don't waste it." Google can ignore diacrtical marks, which can be helpful sometimes, but other times confusing. There is no mention of Dandes anywhere in the document that I can find; Google may have found a best match in some of the other words in the document that use multiple deltas, like ΑΔΗΔΩΝ, part of a section heading that means something like "From the Ascribed Books". But yes, I did find the Simonides poem and I think I can add a little more information and refine the citations. --Jpbrenna (talk) 23:17, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

• I still would prefer to Keep this article. It is an exception to the mass merger: He won at multiple games; he is mentioned in a poem. Furthermore, a full merge would unbalance the target. At present the lead section of the article contradicts the poem quoted which says that he had rather more victories. Do we have any reason to suppose the poem to be wrong? Peterkingiron (talk) 10:27, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Given the content that Jpbrenna has added to the article I have changed my !vote to Keep, as there is sufficient enough content to warrant a stand-alone article. Pishcal — ♣ 12:45, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Collapsing off-topic discussion, hope nobody minds

Hyphantes

Since nobody has thought it necessary to post a count before concluding the deletion request, I'll do it.

Keep: 5

Merge all: 2

Merge, but keep some:7

Delete: 0

This means that the original deletion request was rejected. I want to thank everybody for this unanimous vote, because it attests that my contributions were valid.

Actually this appeared quite clear from the start as even the originator of the request, Pishcal, has never cast a vote for deletion. His vote is Merge, but keep some.

Thus remains the question why the deletion request was filed at all. I think that Pishcal had every right to question the utility of the pages created. He was also right trying to influence the further development of the project. There is an instrument on Wikipedia to do that. It is called Talk page.

However he decided on another instrument without ever contacting me and this gave a number of people, who had never taken any interest in the argument, the power to interfere. What followed has been called a "mess" by Dirtlawyer1 and I would rather agree with his definition.

More precisely, I'd tend to call the procedure an abuse, since it has been wielded to install a kind of preventive democratic control over how users have to submit their contributions to Wikipedia, which is certainly not the purpose of a deletion request.

According to the spirit of the compromise reached and to judge from the messages posted on the single talk pages, it is now in the competence of the admins to decide which articles on ancient athletes are permitted, how many and why. Thus everything has been burocraticized and as a consequence the whole area of research has been transformed into a minefield. So who would ever touch it again?

This approach hasn't worked in the past and it never will. Probably these power plays are also among the motives for the loss of so many valid editors whose enthusiasm must have vanished for a reason. As long as these stupid games have the better, I'm afraid the future looks bleak. Wikipedia can only survive as a free encyclopedia and today we have lost some of that freedom.

After many words, here is the body count of today's battle:

This user has stopped contributing to Wikipedia.

What I leave on the field is a rudimentary list of Olympic winners, thirty-five marginal articles with a merge tag and an incomplete calendar which is currently displayed on 776 pages and should have been expanded to 400 more.

Maybe the users wielding paragraphs and guidelines will take care of the completion of these projects, but from what I've seen I'm not very optimistic. Thanks everybody for watching. Good bye. --Hyphantes (talk) 23:14, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Power plays? Minefields? All seems a bit dramatic, don't you think? Nothing has changed about Wikipedia policy Hyphantes, the AfD has simply determined that most of the subjects fail the notability guidelines, and I'd like to direct your attention to WP:CSC. Creating a list where every entry fails the notability guidelines is allowed and in fact encouraged rather than creating standalone articles. Also, abuse? Again, nothing's changed about how you have to submit your creations to Wikipedia. There is consensus that most of the created articles fail the notability guidelines, and yes,standalone articles still do need to meet them. Either way, this isn't the place for this discussion, and I apologize for further derailing this metaphorical train. Pishcal — ♣ 00:41, 28 May 2015 (UTC)