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 keep. joe decker ^{talk to me} 06:25, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Macula (archaeology)

[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No !vote as nominator. Article as it stands is a dictionary definition. Is it an encyclopedic topic that can be expanded? Maybe; it's too far out of my area of competence for me to be sure. But it can't stay like this. Trovatore (talk) 01:12, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, expanded it into a few lines with three references. AshLin (talk) 12:39, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:06, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think a reasonable article could be written about it that would expand it to more than a dicdef (actually, I think it's already more than that, although I appreciate it wasn't when nominated). -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:18, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cerejota (talk) 06:35, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There seems to be a number of sources comprehensively analyzing this feature, so it has potential as an encyclopedic subject. The article is is not the same one that was sent to AfD. There is an additional source in the article's talk page which adds to analysis of this feature. I've added ((WikiProject Photography)) to the talk page because it also appears to be in their scope, which may help get some more eyes on it for future expansion. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 07:54, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Expansion has created a decent basic article. AllyD (talk) 09:25, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not only a dicdef now, too much sourced info to transwiki. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:17, 15 August 2011 (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.