Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ancient Roman society


 * 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 Ancient Rome.  MBisanz  talk 00:14, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Ancient Roman society

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Declining speedy deletion; tagger's rationale was "This article is a duplicate of a section that was already in existence in the article Ancient Rome. This article was originally created as part of a page split that was reversed in July of 2008 and has caused some (or a great deal) of confusion due to it not being deleted at that time." It does seem to be a content fork that doesn't add anything substantial. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 01:52, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.  -- - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 01:54, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete or merge = The article is in place almost exactly as it is on the article page in a section of it's own at Ancient Rome.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:01, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Please don't reach for a deletion nomination tag as the tool of first resort. There are other tools in the toolbox.  One such, simply redirecting the article, is clearly appropriate here.  The title of the section is Ancient Rome.  "Ancient Roman society" is thus clearly the name of a sub-topic, and redirects for sub-topic titles is one of the reasons we use redirects.  There's not even the worry that this is an unlikely subject name.  Even a simple Google Web search, let alone a Google Books search, provides convincing evidence that this isn't some idiosyncratic name for that sub-topic that is peculiar to Wikipedia. &#9786;  (Witness the Britannica article titles, for one thing.)  You could have solved this problem with just one edit, Amadscientist, without need for an AFD discussion or administrator involvement.   Uncle G (talk) 05:10, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Reply = *Sigh* You are mistaken on several points. First off I didn't reach for a deletion nomination tag as the tool of first resort, second, Admin stepped in and offered the AFD which I accepted. This is a duplicate page and Wikipedia does not need multiple copies of articles or sections. Please stick to the discussion of whether the article should be deleted or not. Your in-civil approach to this AFD with the lack of knowledge to the situation shows that you are not as informed as you are alluding to here. I have no idea of what you are suggesting here other than to say that even a duplicate article created in a reversed article split should remain. Also you seem not to know even how to use the AFD discussion. You certainly do use a lot of words for saying very little sir.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:46, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, yes, you did. There's nothing uncivil here.  Someone telling you that you didn't take the obvious course of action, which would have taken one edit on your part (rather than, this far, eight on your part, four on Dank55's part, and two on mine) is not uncivility.  The correct approach to duplicate articles is duplicate articles.  Deletion nominations are not the only tool in the toolbox. Uncle G (talk) 12:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This is not a message board. Please confine your opinion to talk pages. You are in-civil by directing criticism in the incorrect place. Regardless of what your opinion of which tools I decide to use I am within the my rights. My first action was to request speedy deletion. That was the "Incorrect" tool. To be honest, if you feel the article should remain, I am not even against that. Let it stand. However it has caused much confusion because of accusations of cut and paste and copyright infringement. There is not single correct approach and it is in civil to suggest that myself and the admin are wrong for doing this. A more civil way would be to make the suggestion without the accusations accompanying them.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:07, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a discussion page. I said nothing about copyright.  And pointing out what you did wrong without accusing you of anything is exactly what you will find above.  Uncle G (talk) 22:35, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You have used this "Debate" to do nothing but criticize myself and the admin that assisted me, without a single constructive suggestion on the actual subject. Again. I did nothing wrong.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Probably delete -- It would be legitimate to have a separate sub-article to Ancient Rome, dealing with its social history. However the present one appears merely to be the result of copying and pasting the content of the main article: that makes it an undesirable duplicate article.  For the present article to be a legitimate one, the section in the main article would need to be summarised, leaving the detail for this one, but the present main article doesa not seem excessively long, as yet.  I say "probably" because (as indicated) there is a potential solution that would enable both to be kept.  I would also comment that the "military" subsection of Ancient Rome is so long that it ought to be a main section.  Peterkingiron (talk) 23:12, 25 April 2009 (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.