Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chronology of the expedition of Alexander the Great into Asia


 * 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. Although AfD is not cleanup, cleanup has now been done, rendering the nomination largely moot.  Sandstein  05:56, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Chronology of the expedition of Alexander the Great into Asia

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

I think this is wholly redundant to Wars of Alexander the Great. I know AfD is "not for cleanup", but it's worth noting that the article is completely unsourced and lacks basic formatting. — Anonymous Dissident  Talk 11:19, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Its not wholly redundant because it a useful formatting of information, though it would look much nicer in some type of table, see, e.g., Caesar%27s_Civil_War - not sure how common it is to have separate chronology articles, though. --Milowent (talk) 20:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW ( Talk ) 03:44, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. I think this is a clean up issue rather than an item to discuss for deletion. Some people find chronological lists useful. I don't think the dates or battles are seriously going to be contested - and if they are, this is one subject where we all know that scholarly sources can be found! And the subject matter is clearly notable. If there are issues with the article, people can sort them out.  SilkTork  *YES! 23:43, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete If it were simply a matter of making a narrative to go along with the chronology, then it would be a legitimate cleanup. Interesting as this is, it has not one bit of citation to a reliable and verifiable source.  I suspect that this is probably original synthesis, with the author calculating where the Macedonians would likely have been at a particular point in time, based on the dates of battles in other locations.  After more than a month, it's clear to me that there never was a source for this chronology, and I doubt that a month-by-month guess has been attempted.  It's a good mental exercise to do this type of calculation, but having it masquerade as an article that people would refer to and rely upon is another thing entirely.  Mandsford (talk) 12:39, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I doubt the dates are an original synthesis, because there are ancient resources and scholarly writings about where Alexander and his troops were at any one time, e.g. ,,  For all we know, this chronology was lifted from one of those sources.  A chronology for this kind of expedition is a good idea (which is why books on alexander have them), the question is whether this one is so poor that we should delete it?  That seems wrong.  --Milowent (talk) 13:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I am going to regret this, but if consensus is to delete, i'd request userification so I can fix it up and probably insert into some other Alexander article. --Milowent (talk) 13:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Userfy You know, I think it's a great idea to try to increase the knowledge that we have of ancient history.  And while the "citations and footnotes are boring" approach is okay for, say, an article about last week's episode of The Simpsons, there's no place for that in an encyclopedia article about Alexander the Great.  I don't think you'll regret asking this to be userfied.  Even if it took you only a minute or two to cite the two sources above, you spent more time on that then the author did.  Mandsford (talk) 21:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. As this is still listed here, I'll treat it as a proper AFD listing and give my AFD vote. The topic is clearly notable and the article simply needs cleaning up. I've just dropped in 4 easy to follow chronology cites - that's without anyone having to actually read a book or anything serious like that. You just have to look at the dates in the tables and match them to the dates in the article. A chronology of the major events of Alexander's campaign is fairly standard stuff, and is exactly what an encyclopedia should have. I suppose Anonymous Dissident is simply making a point that this article should be tidied up, though I feel that bringing it to AFD - while potentially achieving that clean up - is perhaps a rather overly strong way of going about it. Alexander's campaign is probably one of the best documented pre-20th century campaigns.  SilkTork  *YES! 19:13, 6 October 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.