Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Artiknos


 * 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 no consensus. Stifle (talk) 10:48, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Artiknos

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I can find no sources whatsoever that suggest that this town exists, and the limited article text strongly suggests that it does not pass Wikipedia notability requirements. LegesRomanorum (talk) 22:28, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 00:16, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 00:16, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 00:16, 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) 04:41, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep, per discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome. A formerly populated place from antiquity is presumptively notable, and the Barrington Atlas is sufficient support for that—plus whatever epigraphic "and other evidence" the atlas relies upon is presumably available, even if it can't be easily located over the internet.  Being able to locate this place and distinguish it from similarly-named or located places is sufficient reason for it to have either a stub of its own, or a redirect to a page grouping similarly small items on ancient settlements in this area.  P Aculeius (talk) 14:16, 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) 18:58, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sulfurboy (talk) 04:23, 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) 20:40, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. This will never be more than a stub, doesn't merit an Wikipedia article. --Cornellier (talk) 14:52, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * And what is wrong with a stub on a topic that passes WP:GEOLAND? How is having nothing better? Phil Bridger (talk) 17:14, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sulfurboy (talk) 09:26, 4 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.