Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adrabaecampi


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. (non-admin closure) Toadette Edit! 12:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Adrabaecampi

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

No refs on the page. Seems like a WP:DICDEF. The only refs I see using the word are direct quotations from Ptolemy. JMWt (talk) 08:05, 28 March 2024 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 09:34, 4 April 2024 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  14:37, 11 April 2024 (UTC) Relisting comment: Final relist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 18:44, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. JMWt (talk) 08:05, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Ethnic groups.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  10:53, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  10:53, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep. See the German article for what it should look like. Srnec (talk) 00:50, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete This is so vague as to be useless as it stands, and if nothing happens in 3 relists at AfD nothing ever will. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:23, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * What the hell is supposed to happen? The article should have been kept instead of being relisted until somebody shows up to !vote delete. The article should be referenced and expanded per normal editing procedures. Srnec (talk) 01:17, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete, currently completely useless, this policy probably applies Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 16:05, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, the article currently tells you (1) the primary source, Ptolemy; (2) the Greek transliteration; and (3) where the tribe lived. All information that can be used to track down sources for expanding. Srnec (talk) 01:17, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * This just doesn't seem notable, and again has no references, and never really will since there is no mention of it except for book's passing reference to Ptolemy. Also, the article was relisted since there only 1 vote. @Srnec Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 21:42, 25 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep: Current state of the article is irrelevant. TNT is not a policy. The entry is merely a single sentence long, which makes TNT meaningless. This is not a hoax in any form, so a deletion should not be the case. After a very superficial search, I can see that there are some sources available: There are some more on the German Wikipedia, according to which this was a subdivision of a more major tribe (Campi/Kampoi/...), which may merit a move. Overall, I have no prejudice to changing my vote to merge but don't think this should be deleted. Aintabli (talk) 14:33, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * A quick search shows that there is no information about that tribe other than Wikipedia and people copying from it. Does seem like there is some passing reference to it in books, but frankly also seem not to meet notability guidelines, and is 100% a WP:DICDEF. Also, this article is currently useless. TNT may not be a policy, but in this case isn't not a terrible idea.@Aintabli Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 21:39, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that this is simply useless. What I get from TNT is that a clean restart saves a lot of time and is sometimes beneficial when the page has too many major problems. This is obviously not the case here. As I have already pointed out, this tribe is a part of a major tribe (Kampoi), which is the actual focus of the German Wikipedia entry. I believe moving and expanding is also an option as I have found several more sources here. At best, this could be merged into another article. I am pretty much opposed to deletion at this point. Aintabli (talk) 05:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't see a sensible place to merge this. A merge would be better, if anyone has an idea of where it should go. And I think this should be renamed to match the name of the German article, which is about the broader group this is a sub-group of. But I do think that broader group is notable. The source linked in the de-wiki article gives us about an entire page of text, with the heading Kampoi, in a specialist encyclopedia. -- asilvering (talk) 05:49, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Added the German Wiki stuff. Unimpressive, but enough to keep. Didn't add the German Wiki source. Hyperbolick (talk) 08:18, 26 April 2024 (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.