Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black people in ancient Roman history


 * 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 speedy keep. Community consensus to keep this article is beyond crystal clear. (non-admin closure) Celestina007 (talk) 00:32, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Black people in ancient Roman history

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This article is strictly about a non-notable ethnic intersection that goes against the wikipedia policy that it is not a directory. The topic of the article isn't notable as Aethiopes are even described in the article as "rare in Rome" inside the article. It also includes those born in the African section of the Roman Empire like Septimus Severus who would not be considered as black today. Originalcola (talk) 18:07, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Originalcola (talk) 18:07, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Originalcola (talk) 18:07, 10 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep The nomination is nonsensical because WP:NOT DIRECTORY means "Directories, directory entries, electronic program guides, or resources for conducting business." and so is quite irrelevant. It is easy to find sources which discuss the issue such as Roman Africans and Misconceptions about African Blacks in the Ancient Mediterranean World.  The topic therefore can be improved per policy WP:ATD, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Andrew🐉(talk) 19:23, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep it's an appropriately short article, appropriately referenced, about a fairly small subject. Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:04, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep as per above. Meets WP:GNG easily with 2 papers, 3 books in refs  ‎⠀Trimton⠀‎‎  22:05, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, per above comments. NemesisAT (talk) 22:15, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep: A preposterous nomination based on a misreading of policy. The article is fine by all metrics. Could it use some expanding? Of course. However, there is no significant issue that warranted bringing to AfD. Curbon7 (talk) 22:53, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article is well referenced. For the sake of notability, it doesn't matter if the subject is described as "rare". Dr.KBAHT (talk) 23:28, 10 July 2021 (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.