Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cubiculum


 * 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. (non-admin closure) — Yellow Dingo&#160;(talk) 04:51, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Cubiculum

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:NOTDICT Cabayi (talk) 10:56, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. "Cubiculum" is the Latin word for "bedroom". No sources have been cited to prove the accuracy of this overly specific definition. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:49, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm changing to neutral due to the changes to the article since this AfD began. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:32, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:31, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:31, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:31, 2 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NOT. Another article from a well-meaning student unable to read instructions for contributing. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 21:21, 2 October 2016 (UTC) Changing to Keep based upon recent improvements.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 02:14, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. This has a specific meaning in Roman architecture and culture which is not the same as "bedroom" in modern English, and has loads of coverage in independent reliable sources. For example (and the available sources are far from limited to these) the first two of the very many sources found by the Google Scholar search linked above are this and this. Of course the current article is pretty crappy, but notability is a function of the available sources rather than of the current state of an article. I don't have the time or inclination to fix the article now, but will try to do so in the next few days. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:10, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:10, 3 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. Pointless dicdef. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:49, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Yes, now an acceptable stub. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:35, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not a dictionary. I would note that the author moved the page to a plural form of the title. 331dot (talk) 18:13, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: There was no reason for the move except to frustrate the deletion discussion. Pure page move vandalism. I've moved it back & suppressed the redirect to restore the status quo. WP:PM/C Cabayi (talk) 20:03, 5 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I have rewritten the article based on the two sources that I mentioned above, and many more sources are available from the Google Scholar and Google Books searches linked above. I would invite, , , and  to consider whether their opinions still stand. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:55, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I now think that it is no longer a dictionary page, and there is probably enough to sustain an article, given its current information. 331dot (talk) 20:23, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree. Too late for me to withdraw the nomination per WP:WDAFD, but it's now worth a Keep. Cabayi (talk) 21:17, 6 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep per 86.17.222.157's findings. I'm a bit surprised they were ignored by everyone who commented after him/her. Uanfala (talk) 21:21, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm a little disappointed by that, but not at all surprised. It's pretty much par for the course that participants in deletion discussions ignore the caveat "if they cannot be expanded beyond a definition" at WP:NOT. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:31, 7 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep per article improvements and new sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:44, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep -- The current version looks OK to me. I appreciate that it is only a little more than a definition, but it is certainly not just a definition.  Peterkingiron (talk) 18:58, 9 October 2016 (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.