Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Agrius and Oreius


 * 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   redirect to Polyphonte. There seems to be some agreement that a redirect, rather than a straight up or down "keep/delete" closure, is acceptable to everyone and a good way forward. Lankiveil (speak to me) 21:56, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Agrius and Oreius

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

In effect I am submitting that everything mentioned in the Agrius and Oreius page is also mentioned on the Polyphonte article. Agrius and Oreius are mentioned only in conjunction with the story of Polyphonte and the only classical sources, Antoninus Liberalis’s Metamorphoses, lumps them together in one chapter. As such the presence of two separate articles leads to needless repetition. Deleting the Agrius and Oreius page would accomplish a successful merger of the topic and make things simpler for those potentially researching the subject. Nyctimene (talk) 18:50, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect. Since it appears the myth comes solely from Antoninus Liberalis and there's not much more out there to write, both topic can be encapsulated in the Polyphonte article. I don't see any content to merge and the article is unsourced, so it appears delete and redirect is warranted. If this was an actual merge then it cannot be a merge and delete as requested (though I think this may just be a matter of unclear terminology by the nominator), as this would violate copyright.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:05, 22 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - Let this page stay. They are notable characters in Greek Mythology and were even used by Rick Riordan in his Percy Jackson & the Olympians book "The Sea of Monsters" as Luke Castellan's henchmen even though they are replaced by a Manticore in Percy Jackson: Sea of Monsters. --Rtkat3 (talk) 20:27, 22 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - I'm not sure I agree that they are notable characters. After all they are only mentioned in one source and not a terribly well known one at that. As for your point about their use in Percy Jackson & the Olympians you will note that this fact is also contained in the Polyphonte article. If the Agrius and Oreius page is deleted and redirected then those researching the topic would still be alerted to their presence in Rick Riordan's book. Nyctimene (talk) 21:00, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * A search for "Antoninus Liberalis"+metamorphoses in GBooks seems to produce hundreds of results. James500 (talk) 11:48, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed 5,490 to be exact. As far as I can see from the first 5 pages though all these results are either translations of the one book, Metamorphoses by Antoninus Liberalis, or references to him in anthologies of Greek Myths. I would suggest the mere fact that an author, and his work, are frequently referenced does not mean every character in the work deserves their own article. After all I'm sure you could find even more results if you typed "Bible" into GBooks however that wouldn't justify giving every minor character referenced in the genealogies their own page.. Nyctimene (talk) 17:07, 29 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - I agree with Fuhghettaboutit's suggestion to delete and redirect and apologize for the unclear terminology in my initial suggestion. Nyctimene (talk) 21:10, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 25 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Could someone perhaps point to a policy or guideline that says that a page like this should be deleted before being redirected? I cannot see what purpose that would serve and I do not support it. It sounds like a complete waste of time. CSD A10 explicitly does not apply to any page whose title is a plausible redirect. James500 (talk) 11:26, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You can find the relevant policy here. In effect you shouldn't redirect from an article which contains content. If nobody objects the article can have all content removed and then be redirected however people have objected and hence policy was followed by requesting deletion. Nyctimene (talk) 11:49, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I am also unclear why you think it is a waste of time? If you are redirecting all traffic away from a page why keep the page intact? Surely it makes sense to delete the page; just because Wikipedia doesn't have the same space constraints as a written encyclopedia doesn't mean it should be cluttered up with hundreds of articles nobody is able to read. Nyctimene (talk) 11:55, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * A blank and redirect does not involve deleting the page. A blank and redirect leaves the page history intact. Article deletion is a different process that removes the page history. James500 (talk) 14:58, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm aware of that but you can't blank a page if another user objects. In such circumstances the policy I cited above states that an articles for deletion page should be opened which I have done. Out of interest if the page is, as I claim it is, complete repetition what value do you think there is in preserving the page history? Are you concerned simply with leaving a record or do you think keeping the history actually accomplishes something I've overlooked? Or do you think the page is not mere repetition? It would be good to know why you actually object to deletion beyond the bureaucratic scruples you have expressed. Nyctimene (talk) 16:21, 29 October 2014 (UTC)


 * For the sake of putting this to rest once and for all here is the relevant policy in full:


 * "Removing all content in a problematic article and replacing it with a redirect is common practice, known as blank-and-redirect. If other editors disagree with this blanking, its contents can be recovered from page history, as the article has not been formally deleted. If editors cannot reach consensus, the article should be formally submitted to a deletion discussion." (Emphasis added) Nyctimene (talk) 16:44, 29 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Do not delete. No valid rational for deletion has been advanced. There is no reason to delete this page before redirecting it. The nominator just doesn't understand how to redirect a page. James500 (talk) 14:58, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Firstly that is a rather rude assertion which doesn't assume good faith on my part. Secondly blanking the page and redirecting would be pointless and expressly contrary to policy because Rtkat3 clearly objects. As such if I did blank the page he would simply put it back and I would have accomplished nothing. It was for this very reason that this article for deletion was started. You are of course entitled to your own view on the matter but I would ask, in the future, that you advance your argument on its merits rather than by insulting me personally. Nyctimene (talk) 15:52, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * On the substantive point the article ought to be deleted because it is an example of needless repetition. Needless repetition is obviously undesirable and should be avoided where possible. To me that seems like an entirely valid and logical rationale for deletion. While you have questioned whether this article for deletion has followed proper policy, as far as I can see you have, at no point, actually engaged with the merits of the argument. It seems to me, therefore, slightly unfair to say no rationale has been given when you haven't even tried to address a perfectly reasonable rationale which has been clearly laid out multiple times on this page. Nyctimene (talk) 16:01, 29 October 2014 (UTC)


 * What WP:R appears to say contradicts criteria 1 of WP:SK and criteria B1 and C1 of WP:BEFORE, which say that an AfD should not be brought to resolve a dispute over whether a page should ne redirected. I suggest the words in question be removed from WP:R, as they are obviously wrong. The correct process is a normal merger proposal. James500 (talk) 17:05, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Criteria one of WP:SK gives the following reason for a speedy keep, 'The nominator withdraws the nomination or fails to advance an argument for deletion—perhaps only proposing a non-deletion action such as moving or merging, and no one other than the nominator recommends that the page be deleted.' This is clearly not the case here for two reasons. First I have advanced an argument for deletion and secondly Fuhghettaboutit, someone other than the nominator, also recommends deletion. Criteria B1 of WP:BEFORE asks one to carry out the following check prior to starting an article for deletion, 'Confirm that the article does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, proposed deletion or speedy keep.' None of these criteria are met. Finally criteria C1, 'If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD.' It cannot be fixed through normal editing because there is no consensus to blank and redirect. As such none of these criteria in any way contradict the text cited in WP:R. I strongly disagree that that WP:R is, 'obviously wrong' and would suggest none of the criteria you have cited have any bearing on this case. Nyctimene (talk) 17:21, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The words cannot be fixed though normal editing in criteria C1 mean cannot be fixed without deleting the page. They have nothing to do with consensus. They refer to the use of the page deletion user right (sometimes referred to as a button or tool), which non-admins do not have. James500 (talk) 18:14, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The text reads, 'cannot be fixed though normal editing' not, 'cannot be fixed without deleting.' That may be how you interpret it but I suggest you are mistaken in light of the WP:R policy. If my interpretation is correct both are perfectly compatible whereas your interpretation demands a conflict between them. Anyway we are getting off topic, might I refer you to my suggestion below... Nyctimene (talk) 18:22, 29 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - I would like to clarify that despite the wording of my initial post I am not suggesting a merger. I simply meant that by deleting Agrius and Oreius one would remedy the needless repetition caused by reciting one story twice. As Fuhghettaboutit correctly noted there is nothing to merge and hence the normal merger process is inappropriate. The article should instead be redirected however, due to a lack of consensus, the only way to fix the problem was to start this article for deletion. Nyctimene (talk) 17:31, 29 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Suggestion - Let's step back a moment because I think we can actually find some common ground here. Put to one side the process by which this page was started. I think we can agree that, 1) the two articles deal with the same story, 2) that is undesirable, 3) therefore there should be a redirect. I will completely abandon any attempt to delete the page if you will support the idea of a blank and redirect. That way the history stays completely intact, as you want, but the story is only told once, as I want. What do you say, truce? Nyctimene (talk) 17:56, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * At this time, the only thing I object to is deletion. I have not had time to check the notability of the characters, so I am neutral on the possibility of redirection without deletion. James500 (talk) 18:24, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I would be most grateful though if, when you have more time, you could take a look. I think that's probably the best way forward at this point. Nyctimene (talk) 18:57, 29 October 2014 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 02:26, 30 October 2014 (UTC)




 * Summary and possible way forward - So far we have one editor opting to keep the page intact and two opting to blank and redirect. The argument goes that the pages in question are both essentially telling the same story, that this is undesirable and hence Agrius and Oreius should be redirected to the article on Polyphonte. To resolve this matter I urge additional people to look at the two articles. Decide if you think it makes sense to have two article or whether one should be redirected. Then respond appropriately below. Nyctimene (talk) 15:01, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - The page was to detail about Agrius and Oreius. Polyphonte's article talked more about her. --Rtkat3 (talk) 22:44, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Reply - The Polyphonte article contains just as much information about Agrius and Oreius as the dedicated page, perhaps more. That it also contains details about Polyphote is hardly a problem in such a small article. I would point out that even the dedicated Agrius and Oreius article contains the line, 'their story begins with a woman named Polyphonte' and that, actually, cuts to the heart of the issue. Both pages are basically just the retelling of an incredibly small story, barely a page long, contained in a single classical source. I don't see why a one page story needs to be told twice, in two separate articles, when it could be told perfectly well in one. Sub-articles on specific characters are fantastic when they provide extra information which would clog up a more general piece. This however is not the case here. The Agrius and Oreius article adds absolutely no unique information whatsoever. Any reader clicking from Polyphonte to it just wastes their time. That seems to me to be clearly undesirable and, in the interests of tidying up content, I suggest a blank and redirect is the most appropriate course of action. Nyctimene (talk) 23:53, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 04:04, 7 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: this seems to be an article about some very minor figures, whose sole known appearance in Greek mythology occurs in one work of a very minor author. The Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology doesn't mention them, and even seems to have misplaced an article on Antoninus Liberalis, although he is cited on occasion.  I'm not saying that this alone should decide the issue; but if this article doesn't contain any substantial and noteworthy information that isn't already in the parent article on Polyphonte, then it doesn't have a reason to exist.  Since all of the material in question is already in the Polyphonte article, this one should be changed into a redirect to Polyphonte.  P Aculeius (talk) 02:59, 11 November 2014 (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.