Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/How often do you think of the Roman Empire?


 * 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 merge‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__ to Legacy of the Roman Empire. A merge result does not mean that all content needs to be merged, nor that it needs to be merged as it is currently written. If there is a concern that supposed low-quality content would be introduced by copy-pasting the text (with attribution), I think there's hardly any barrier to copyediting or rewriting whatever's worth salvaging before merging. (non-admin closure) Actualcpscmscrutinize, talk 21:03, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

How often do you think of the Roman Empire?

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

WP:HOAX Dude here and I rarely think about this or like digging holes at the beach for that matter. Americanfreedom (talk) 18:59, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Internet.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:43, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Not a hoax, but definitely TikTok coverage falling into WP:SENSATIONAL WP:RECENTISM and unlikely to have long-term notability as per WP:SUSTAINED. For those reasons, delete. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:48, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge to Legacy of the Roman Empire. Perhaps the newness of the trend has not proven to be sustained enough to stand as a full article, but in-depth sources from the New York Times, The Atlantic, and The Washington Post are nothing to overlook. (Plus a Forbes article just released an hour ago, among many, many other sources). I oppose an outright deletion. Delete the redirect of Gaius Flavius, though. Why? I Ask (talk) 20:32, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge as I don't think this specific TikTok trend is much more than WP:NEWS buuuuuuuuuut I do think there is space (and reason) for Wikipedia to cover how the Roman Empire lives in modern perception and continues to be a subject of interest for many people. Rome lives in many hearts and minds!★Trekker (talk) 20:54, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * And as a woman I would like to add that I do think of the Roman Empire at least once a day!★Trekker (talk) 20:55, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. fails WP:GNG. DrowssapSMM (talk) 21:02, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Why delete instead of merging clearly notable coverage?★Trekker (talk) 21:06, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge to a brief section in the tik tok article. We don't need to say much more than it exists. Oaktree b (talk) 22:34, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete, not a hoax, but it's just a trend. In the case of long-term notability, no this does not fit that case. It is a meme that can be maybe be included in the Legacy of the Roman Empire, but it will die by the end of the week. Conyo14 (talk) 22:42, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete as per User:AirshipJungleman29. If it's still a thing 6 months from now, recreate. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever) 23:08, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Change vote to Merge with Legacy of the Roman Empire. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever) 10:29, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge to Legacy of the Roman Empire per Why? I Ask. - Indefensible (talk) 23:10, 18 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Merge to Legacy of the Roman Empire per above as article creator; also, I wasn't alerted of this AFD. — Knightof  theswords  23:52, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge with Legacy of the Roman Empire, fails WP:GNG as a standalone article but still has notable sources about it.  Brachy 08  (Talk) 04:21, 19 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete - no evidence of lasting significance, and it's for that reason that I'm not supporting a merge/redirect, either. Wait to see if there's more than a single news cycle's worth of "check out this meme" before putting anywhere. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 14:57, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep/merge. Definitely not a hoax; I saw something about this just yesterday—didn't read it, but suspected it might be some sort of debate about hypermasculinity/hyperconservatism.  Not sure if it's going to have long-term significance, but evidently it's got a lot of coverage and probably can be noted somewhere.  Not sure if it really belongs under Legacy of the Roman Empire, but that's a possible target if not kept at this title.  I note that this was nominated for deletion only a few hours after it was created.  Since it's not a hoax and neither libel nor inherent copyright infringement (if there is any offending text, it should be easy to rewrite), shouldn't we give the article creator, and anyone else interested in the topic, a reasonable opportunity to expand or otherwise improve the article before deleting it?  P Aculeius (talk) 16:26, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete (or Draftify) - Nothing to indicate that this has any lasting impact beyond the single news cycle in which it was trending. And I disagree with the argument that the fact that it may have further sources in the future to indicate lasting notability means that it should be kept until then. The exact opposite is true - an article on a topic that has not been proven to be notable should not be left in the mainspace of the encyclopedia until it has demonstrated that it passes the notability requirements. I am also against merging it anywhere at this point for the same reason - there is no indication thus far that this trend will actually wind up being notable enough to even be covered in an other article without giving undue weight to how much importance it actually wound up having. That said, I am perfectly fine with sending this back to Draftspace, so if lasting notability is eventually shown for the topic, it will be easy to either restore the article or merge it to an appropriate broader topic. Rorshacma (talk) 16:35, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete votes should just support merging because otherwise we are likely to have no consensus and the article will sit there as-is. - Indefensible (talk) 17:38, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose merging with Legacy of the Roman Empire. Looking through that article, it does not have anything like an "in popular culture"-section, so if we merge there, such a section will have to be created. These sections are problematic in general, and adding one to that article would not be an improvement, especially not if it had to include even TikTok memes not mentioned in any secondary sources about the topic. Even a one-sentence mention of this meme will give it as much weight as Italian fascism's obsession with the Roman Empire, which is plainly WP:UNDUE. (I have no preference between keeping, deleting, draftifying or redirecting.) Jhvx (talk) 19:21, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't really see the sources highlighting it as a fun TikTok meme, but rather a look at how a supposed male obsession with the history of Rome in particular represents how the empire supposedly represents hypermasculinity. That point (not the "meme" per se) is the real encyclopedic content. (See also this Rolling Stones article or this CNN article.) I agree that most "in popular culture" sections or articles are absolutely freaking terrible. But for the Roman Empire, I could see something working. Why? I Ask (talk) 19:33, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * It would really just be one sentence with a source: "In September 2023, males were asked how often they thought of the Roman Empire in a popular TikTok trend" or something similar. It doesn't require much analysis. Conyo14 (talk) 20:43, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree with Conyo14, the subject is really a modern extension of the Roman Empire and hence Legacy of the Roman Empire is the most appropriate location for the content. Not much sociological analysis is needed, although it can be included with any supporting references. Just because it happens to be a meme on social media does not mean it should be discounted. That is just how it works: history in the making. - Indefensible (talk) 22:16, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge to Legacy of the Roman Empire. While the trend seems to meet GNG and could possibly be kept, I think the merge is a good suggestion, per WP:NOPAGE. A merge also prevents us from returning here if SUSTAINED is not met in a month or two. &mdash;siro&chi;o 05:00, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete No indication that is notable. Its off the moment and has no meaningful historical value. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Why is there all these "merge" entries like its a reasonable conversation. The Legacy of the Roman Empire is a well-written academic article. It will completely destroy it, putting this trash in.     scope_creep Talk  09:24, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * You should reconsider your uncivil attitude, something isn't "trash" just because you don't like it.★Trekker (talk) 15:24, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge to Legacy of the Roman Empire. I would rather it be deleted as un-encyclopedic rubbish, but a merge seems appropriate. Lightburst (talk) 20:56, 25 September 2023 (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.