The result was keep. A rewrite would definitely be a good idea, but clearly no consensus for deletion. Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:39, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLOWITUP comes to mind. Look at the state of this article, and then at what Wikipedia is not. Wikipedia is not a scientific journal; this certainly reads like a humongous paper written for an anthropology journal. Wikipedia is also not a indiscriminate collection of information; I can't find a better way to describe this article. The immense amount of intricate work that has gone into this article, which is, frankly, a work of art, is its downfall. It's entirely impossible to work with. I think this is a perfectly good subject to write an article on, but it needs to be done in an encyclopaedic manner, and I believe that it has to be done from scratch. So, as I say, WP:BLOWITUP seems relevant. Microphonicstalk 23:34, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I wrote this entire article and, frankly, I can't believe that someone proposes its deletion because it is "too well written". You say it should be erased because It contains too much information and seems like an article written for an scientific (anthropological) journal... Well, you are saying that Wikipedia is less reliable and of less value than an scientific journal, and it should remain that way. I think we can make Wikipedia a source as valid as an scientific journal. You say that this article should be written "in an encyclopedic manner", perhaps implying that encyclopedical articles are much shorter, but you forget that encyclopedical articles tend to be much shorter because of lack of space (they are written on paper). Wikipedia is a digital source and, as such, doesn't have these limitations. We should take advantage of this and write articles as "long and detailed" as we could. I considered my article finished and wasn't thinking about writing more on it, but when I visited it today, wanting to get a view of my finished work, alas, here I find someone trying to blow it up because it is "too long". Do you think this is fair and ethical? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ansegam (talk • contribs) 5 September 2013
Hello, I am Ansegam. I split up the article into several parts as some of you told me. I hope it is more readable now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ansegam (talk • contribs) 19:44, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]