Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rise of Rome

: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 - while the initial reaction appears to have been heavily weighted in favor of a redirect, DGG's and others' better arguments later on have leaned towards keeping this. Bearian (talk) 13:19, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

=[[Rise of Rome]]=

:{{la|Rise of Rome}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rise_of_Rome Stats])

:({{Find sources|Rise of Rome}})

Post modernist drivel. Mostly consists of WP:OR. What little that remains after the the post modernist stuff has been eliminated could find its way the mainstream History of the Roman Republic. But its scarcely worth the effort. Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:52, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

  • Redirected to History of the Roman Empire, since we don't have a separate article on the history of the Roman Republic. Nothing here that I saw was worthy of keeping. Nyttend (talk) 19:40, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment It read like a pretty good high school term paper, but was full of opinions and conclusions which lacked references, meaning that they were either original research or borrowed without citation. The only other ending to this AFD I could endorse would be a Smerge to the redirect target, if it includes referenced text which would improve the target article. The thing that doesn't work is to have the article effectively blanked while the AFD remains open. Edison (talk) 19:52, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Redirect to History of the Roman Empire. I have reverted Nyttend's bold redirect until the AFD has concluded. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:07, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Redirect per Nyttend, and add a hatnote for the game at the target. Ansh666 22:47, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

  • Keep -- This article is not a history article, but a historiography article about the views of historians (of various times and persuasions) on the subject. I accept that this is an unusual article, and it may need to be renamed to Views on the Rise of Rome or Rise of Rome (historiography). The article should certainly not be expanded to parallel existing history articles, and needs a title that will not encourage that. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:03, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong keep - as mentioned by Peterkingiron this is a historiography not history. We have a similar Decline of the Roman Empire (though it has a history section tacked on, main focus and purpose has always been historiography). Other related historiography articles include Dark Ages (historiography). The rise and fall of the Roman Empire is one of the most written about topics in all of history, Wikipedia needs a lot more historiography. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 15:31, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

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

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:21, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

  • Keep Historiography of a major historical subject. I agree with User:Green Cardamon that the only problem here is that we need more articles like this. 'DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 18:35, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Redirect to History of Rome. Discussion on including any of the arguments in this essay can take place in the context of the existing article covering the broader subject. Candleabracadabra (talk) 19:39, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep per the reasoning of Green Cardamom and Peterkingiron The rise of Rome is prominent enough that the historiography of the event is notable, too. It overlaps somewhat with Roman historiography but is much broader, including modern approaches to the history of the event as well. The main problem with the article is some likely original research per WP:OR and a paucity of references. While the article needs a lot of improvement, there seem no insurmountable problems, per WP:SURMOUNTABLE. A notable topic and surmountable article problems suggest keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 20:35, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

::You seem to be arguing that there COULD be an article covering this subject. If an editor wants to make such and attempt, I think they're welcome to it. But as there are existing article on the History of Rome and Roman historiography, this unsourced essay should be redirected to the history article and improvement efforts targeted to existing articles constructed based on Wikipedia guidelines. Candleabracadabra (talk) 21:38, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

::: That's correct. AfD is about determining whether a topic is notable. If the topic is notable (and it is, for instance, check out the book on the rise of Rome The Histories by Polybius, one of the founders of Roman historiography) then generally an article is kept for improvement. There are exceptions--copyright violations, BLP violations, unintelligible messes, etc.--but if an article is improvable, it should generally stay. See WP:SURMOUNTABLE for details. --Mark viking (talk) 22:24, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

::::Other than the subject title, which part of this article should be kept based on Wikipedia guidelines regarding citations to reliable independent sources? Candleabracadabra (talk) 22:27, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

:::::Candleabracadabra, please read WP:MUST, it's part of WP:SURMOUNTABLE that Mark keeps pointing you to. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 00:56, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

::::::I repeat my prior query: What in this article is worth preserving? What in this article adds in a helpful way to the existing articles covering this subject? Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:24, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

  • Keep – The article, as it stands, needs work, but per WP:RUBBISH, that is not a reason to delete the article if the subject is notable, and the historiography of the rise of Rome is. It might be better to also rename it to one of the titles Peterkingiron suggested, though, to make it clear it isn't a history article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Egsan Bacon (talk • contribs) 14:25, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Further comment -- Roman historiography is a different subject again. That article is about the views of ancient Roman historians about the history of Rome. I will agree that the article needs work, but that is not a good reason for deletion. As I said above this article is about the views of historians. It should be sufficient to cite what they wrote. There may be works about the historiography of a subject generally, but they are usually rare. However, it is normal to set out some of the historiography of a subject at the beginning of a work on the history. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:21, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment The suggestion that it be covered in :Roman History seems to be based upon not recognizing the difference between history pf Rome, the study of what happened in Rome, and historiography of Rome, the study of how people wrote about the history of Rome. The suggestion that this is covered :in Roman Histography article must have been made with out reading the article, which deals with the ancient ' treatment of Roman history-- Roman history as conceived by the Romans. The discontinuity with modern historical writing is great enough to justify two articles. I hope we will have many more historiography articles, but, as mentioned above, this does need to be more clearly titles. DGG ( talk ) 04:18, 16 September 2013 (UTC) ''

: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.