43348cda0701120919k15954458g636078210a2adede(a)mail.gmail.com> with important, counting I'd have to agree with James on this one. This could also be a boon for FA and GA promotions. It would diminish the tendancy for voting at AFD, FAC, etc. to look like a division of "i don't like it" and the "i like it" camps. Several months ago, an AFD came up for "Amafanius", an early Roman Epicurean philosopher whose works, while unfortunately lost to the ages, were discussed at length in the works of Cicero (who trashed Amafanius with glee), and in Michel de Montaigne. Because of their referencing, the philosophical offerings of Amafanius can actually be reconstructed...but only in broad strokes. As someone who studied classics at Rutgers and am well-versed in this area, I recognized that he was notable and should have a place here at Wikipedia. Thankfully, because a few others were just as well-versed, we were able to save the article. But, unfortunately, as it typical around here, a large number of users who obvious appeared to be the tech-saavy, internet-raised Pokemon-crowd for whom nothing exists before, say, 20 years ago, voted for "Delete". One of the failings, one that probably contributes to some of the negative reputation Wikipedia has earned, is that it does not have any expert oversight. Perhaps some sort of prominent, scholarly, editorial advisory board would be in order? Even if loosely bureaucratic, it would add a little more weight to the credibility of the encyclopedia that would be a worthwhile step in counteracting an image diminished by our pop-culture heaviness (pokemon, star trek, etc.) and "anyone can edit (read: vandalise/insert false information)" repuation. Regards, Christopher D. Thieme User:ExplorerCDT