Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aralla


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 15:22, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Aralla

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Notability - there is absolutely no way that a town about which nothing is known, whose existence can only be inferred and whose name is never mentioned by any authors meets WP notability requirements. I can find no sources whatsoever that attest to this town existing. LegesRomanorum (talk) 22:14, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 00:17, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 00:17, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 00:17, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete per my rationale at this deletion discussion about a functionally identical article. CJK09 (talk) 04:40, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep, per current discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome. As a formerly-populated place from antiquity, it's presumptively notable, even if the only source we have cited is the Barrington Atlas.  But if it says the place is inferred from epigraphic evidence, then presumably the epigraphy in question is also a valid source to cite, whether or not we can identify it using the internet.  As a stub article, it has sufficient justification to exist simply because readers might run across the name—whether on Wikipedia or any other source—and expect to know where it was, or at least verify what it was.  A simple summary like the article has now is enough for that, although as the discussion shows, it might be folded into a larger article containing similarly undetailed geographic stubs from the same region.  P Aculeius (talk) 14:26, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep -- I agree rationale of last contribution. It is useful to have at least a stub on such places; or at worst a redirect, due to merging. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:00, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sulfurboy (talk) 04:24, 28 May 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep per my comment at Articles for deletion/Appolena. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:39, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   07:26, 6 June 2020 (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.