Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roman Emperor (Principate)

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|Roman Emperor (Principate)}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=Roman Emperor (Principate)}})

I am also nominating the following related pages because they follow the same pattern as the aforementioned one, only for different historical periods:

:{{la|Roman Emperor (Dominate)}}

:{{la|Roman Emperors during the Fall of the Western Empire}}

This article intends to describe the nature of the office of Roman emperor during the period outlined in the title. I don't see why this needs a specific page rather than be treated in the Roman emperor page itself. I would have proposed a merge, but the entire article amounts simply to a listing of Roman emperors with information already covered in other articles. The article has no sources, has demonstrably wrong information, and {{underline|adds nothing which other articles already do}}, so deletion seems appropriate here, per WP:CONTENTFORK and WP:DEL-REASON. Avis11 (talk) 17:34, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:41, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

• Keep Passes GNG. Shoving everything into one article isn't the solution to every subpar article. This page and the others need improvement, not deletion.★Trekker (talk) 17:59, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
• The pages are all basically 80% Roman emperor lists (there is already a page for that), 10% information on dynasties and individual emperors (already covered in other articles), 10% briefly and awkwardly worded stuff describing the imperial office (likewise, already covered in other articles), and 0% sourced content. The primary topic of these articles, i.e. the description of the Roman imperial office in the outlined period, can be summed into just a couple of paragraphs in the already existent Roman emperor page – it hardly needs a separate article for that, and so it's hardly 'shoving' as you say. Avis11 (talk) 18:13, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
• Merge These articles contain the sort of information that should be at Roman emperor. The relevant sections of that article, which point to these, should be expanded. Other information should merge with Principate and Dominate where pertinent. Agree that the nominated articles are unnecessary. GPinkerton (talk) 21:36, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
• The articles in question add nothing which isn't already covered elsewhere, so there's nothing to merge. Merging would also mean keeping pesky redirects around. See WP:DEL-REASON and WP:CONTENTFORK. Avis11 (talk) 17:57, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
• Keep or split -- It is common for WP to have a general article and a series of more details sub-articles (described as "main" articles). That is the structure here. I feel that the balance between the general article and the detailed ones is less than ideal. It might have been better for the section of Roman emperor dealing with the Principate to have given a little more detail of about 4 successive dynasties, Julio-claudian; Flavian; Nerva to Commodus (where succession was by adoption, not descent); and Severan, each with a separate article, rather than combining them all into one article, but to merge this (as suggested) and by implication also those for the chaos; Dominate; and Fall periods would make the potential target grossly unwieldly. Nevertheless this is far from being a good article. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:16, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
• That you're labeling this as a case of main and sub-articles shows you haven't properly read or understood my point or the articles in question. This is a case of WP:CONTENTFORK, for which the solution is fewer, not more, articles. There is nothing to merge, and there's no "potential target" to be made unwieldy – this is a request for deletion, not merge. Your proposal to expand an already redundant article base is the exact opposite of what should be done here. Avis11 (talk) 17:57, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
• Delete. The points made by Avis11 are convincing to me. As stated, these are mostly lists, and they are not as informative, space-efficient, or accessible as the already existing List of Roman emperors. In addition, these articles strongly duplicate Principate, Crisis of the Third Century and Dominate - all of these articles are largely about the Roman Emperor in the respective periods; all of them are (shockingly) short, meaning that there is no justification for separating out the material in them on the imperial office (even if that were possible). Furius (talk) 18:06, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
• (second thoughts) Merge another way -- I accept the criticism of Avis11: I looked at the main nominated article, but not the additional nominated ones. I suspect that there is little worth merging to to nom's target, but the first nominated article could usefully be added to Principate, perhaps as a new section on "dynasties". The relationships between successive emperors in about four dynasties are worth having, though I do not like the current structure and would prefer to see the "dynastic relationships" sections worked into the main narrative text. Better still would be to have separate sub-articles on each dynasty: perhaps we do already, in which case the merge should be even briefer, with a link to that. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:54, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

:On investigating further, I find that we do have the dynasty articles, so that my reference is for a short merger to Principate and Dominate with links to the dynasty articles. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:54, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

• Comment. To those ({{re|GPinkerton}}, {{re|Peterkingiron}}) proposing a merge, you have to READ the articles and take the trouble to outline what's indeed worth merging. If some careless administrator closes the discussion saying that the consensus is inconclusive or to merge, then the articles in question {{underline|won't be deleted and will be around for another 15 years}}. Presumably those proposing a merger will leave to another editor the trouble of actually performing said merge, and never bother themselves with the subject again. {{underline|Merge proposals = pointless obstruction}}. So, please, say either delete or keep. Avis11 (talk) 12:49, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
• Delete, this article is pointless. It is just a detailed list of Roman emperors down to Severus Alexander. We already have such list elsewhere. T8612 (talk) 21:04, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
• Merge into other articles as appropriate. Just glancing over these, I don't see much that's particularly useful, and there's some very questionable writing (Agrippa was certainly never emperor; and why are all the instances of emperors' names in bold?). There certainly doesn't seem to be anything that wouldn't make more sense in other articles, whether about individual dynasties, or about emperors or time periods generally. Whatever is useful here, and not already in the other articles, can be safely moved there, IMO, and these articles redirected to the best targets—not sure deleting them outright would be a good idea, since the page history would be lost, but I can't see using these titles as search targets. P Aculeius (talk) 21:08, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge given previous arguments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.110.217.186 (talk) 02:40, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.