Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dura, Africa


 * 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. Consensus is clearly keep, but the best name for the article is in discussion. This should continue at the article talk page. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 21:22, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Dura, Africa

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Cannot find any source online. The original and only source listed is an annual directory of Popes and Holy See officials. Not sure how much the original source can determine notability (but it doesn't seem like an independent source). Parts of the article also read as WP:NONSENSE that I'm not sure how to salvage. Whisperjanes (talk) 01:19, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Whisperjanes (talk) 01:19, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Whisperjanes (talk) 01:19, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Whisperjanes (talk) 01:19, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Whisperjanes (talk) 01:19, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

 Keep Rename. There's no reason that the sources need to be online, but this web site is a reliable source about this kind of thing. Here's a reference to the ancient see and other's should be available as well. Here's another article mentioning that a bishop has been appointed titular bishop of Dura. Jahaza (talk) 01:56, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean to make it sound like sources need to be online, per se. I just did the WP:BEFORE online and couldn't find any additional sources mentioning Dura, so I didn't see it passing WP:GNG and I didn't see enough verification for it to pass WP:GEOLAND notability either. Per geographic notability, I also am not sure if it's a verified micronation (which would need WP:GNG to pass) or a legally recognized place.
 * And I'm not super familiar with Christian subjects, but what makes the first source a reliable source? And do you know what the second source is mentioning? Thanks Whisperjanes (talk) 05:34, 8 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep per Jahaza, though renaming the article may be a good idea (Dura (titular bishopric)? Mccapra (talk) 12:49, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment -- I think we have discouraged articles on titular sees of the Catholic Church in partes infidelum. However this was apparently a real place.  If kept it should be renamed to end either with Tunisia or the name of the Roman province.  Peterkingiron (talk) 18:26, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The title already ends with the name of the Roman province. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:57, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the name of the province is actually Byzacena per . So I think it should be renamed Dura, Byzacena (which I've just created as a redirect). I think since it was a real place and not just a titular see, we probably shouldn't rename it with titular see in the title. We do need to distinguish from a number of other Duras and we'll need a disambiguation page at some point.--Jahaza (talk) 18:41, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see we already have a disambiguation page at Dura--Jahaza (talk) 18:46, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The province of Africa was split in the late 3rd century CE/AD when this became part of Byzacena. For most of antiquity this was part of Africa. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:59, 11 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep. It was a real city so should be retained. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:28, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Question & Comment Should this be kept as the name it is right now, then? I do think now, as a titular see, it seems more notable (but I'm still unsure if titular sees are considered micronations like the Vatican or not, which would affect it passing WP:GEOLAND).
 * But I do see some editors above mentioning it was a real city/place (I assume referring to the ancient city) as their reason for keeping, but I haven't seen a source yet that confirms that. (Unless someone can read the Latin source provided by above and it's considered reliable). And I definitely haven't seen a source yet that shows it was/is in Africa.
 * The reason I'm concerned about the current and only source on the article (The Annuario Pontificio) that is supposed to verify this information is that I can only tell that it's a yearly directory. I'm not sure if it actually has any ancient history or history of geography included, and it only is cited as a source under the "Titular see" section, not the History section. I'm also concerned because the original creator of this article is blocked now because they were found to be a sockpuppet, and had a habit of not citing sources across Wikipedia (look up the word "citations" or "reference" on their talk page or see the block). So I'm not sure if there really was a "Dura, Africa." Whisperjanes (talk) 18:03, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I've linked the page to the Italian (& German) versions of Wikipedia. The Italian version of Wikipedia includes three good sources in Latin and French.
 * Pius Bonifacius Gams, Series episcoporum Ecclesiae Catholicae, Leipzig 1931, p. 465
 * Stefano Antonio Morcelli, Africa christiana, Volume I, Brescia 1816, p. 153
 * J. Ferron, v. Durensis in Dictionnaire d'Histoire et de Géographie ecclésiastiques, vol. IX, 1937, col. 1178
 * --Jahaza (talk) 18:35, 11 March 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.