Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interim velim a sole mihi non obstes!


 * 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. I feel snow Spartaz Humbug! 07:00, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Interim velim a sole mihi non obstes!

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Fails WP:N. Diogenes of Sinope was a Greek speaker, and there are several versions (in Greek) of what he may have said to Alexander the Great. This particular Latin phrase apparently appears in Valerius Maximus and the satires of Juvenal. A search for this phrase on Google Book Search reveals just 18 books which quote this phrase - mainly just Latin editions of those two authors. It is worth noting that a search for the alternative Cicero phrase mentioned on this page gives 24 books. Singinglemon (talk) 19:35, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. The story about Diogenes and Alexander is certainly notable, but the place to treat it is where it is already treated, in Diogenes of Sinope. This Latin version of Diogenes' supposed remark has no independent notability. Deor (talk) 21:17, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The story of Diogenes and Alexander is, indeed, notable. It's one of the most discussed anecdotes in history, written about by a millennium or two's worth of writers.  I'm sure that there's a source or two for a fairly lengthy encyclopaedia article in there somewhere. &#9786; Uncle G (talk) 06:14, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I should probably mention that it's been painted and sculpted a lot, too. Uncle G (talk) 07:25, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Absolutely! I would like to make it clear that I also agree that the story of Diogenes and Alexander is notable. You've done a fine job creating an article on the subject. Singinglemon (talk) 20:06, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the shortsightedness of this nomination has been conclusively proven by Uncle G's contribution.  Skomorokh   10:42, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't understand you I'm afraid. The works of Juvenal and Valerius Maximus contain thousands of Latin phrases. Why would there ever need to be a page devoted to the Latin phrase "Interim velim a sole mihi non obstes" when it's never quoted by anyone? Singinglemon (talk) 20:06, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Pardon my opaqueness. My point is that this analysis is superficial, addressing only a portion of the sampled content; you found the title problematic, don't seem to have considered another to better represent the potential of the topic, and condemned the entire article as a result. The fact (shown to your satisfaction and mine by Uncle G, evidently) that the value of the content and the underlying topic (which in both the current and former state of the article was the interaction of Diogenes and Alexander) could be properly represented in an encyclopaedia article did not seem to have been considered.  Skomorokh   20:36, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh I see. Our point of (trivial) disagreement is that I think there was nothing worth keeping from the page I nominated for deletion. It couldn't have been expanded under it's original name, and there is no way I would ever have moved that article, as it was, to Diogenes and Alexander. Even now I think leaving in the Valerius Maximus and Cicero variants of the quotes reads like mindless pedantry, but I've left them in for now, and relegated the Latin to footnotes. Singinglemon (talk) 21:52, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * An encyclopedic treatment would include it as a subsection of Diogenes of Sinope, where, failing that, there should be a concise version of this article as a free-standing section, with a hatnote guiding readers.--Wetman (talk) 16:53, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You know that in some versions of the anecdote, Diogenes is not one of the characters, and that it's not all about Diogenes, right? Uncle G (talk) 17:02, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep We could conceivably decide to include only large articles: e.g. have one article only of Philosophy, and include everything under. Or we could conceivably decide to force everything in the world for which there are two individual references into a separate article. But experience shows people do not like to read very long articles with current computer systems, nor do they want to put things together in their head from a very large number of fragments. (Both of these change: on the one hand, connections get faster and screens get larger, along with improvements in navigating long texts; on the other, people seem to be increasingly willing to read & communicate using extremely small chunks   for the sake of portability.) But the general rule is that someone comes to an encyclopedia  expecting an article, not a book, and not an isolated factoid--there are other sites for those needs, and people use them.  This leaves a wide range of possibilities, and I think the best guide is that if there is enough material to write a s decent article then we should do so, and include a summary in more comprehensive articles.  (the main factors inhibiting grouping very small articles are the difficulty of linking reliably and stably to sections of articles,and the need for material within the range of what beginners can write. Personally, I look forward to a way of organizing the material as units in a database, with flexible recombination and aggregation  arrangements, but at present we have an article based-system--perhaps my idea here would better be a separate project. For the present project, this is a sustainable article.   But I am not happy with the title as given, (but its been cleverly redirected) If we use the phrase, since  we do not know the authentic Greek phrase, if there was one, we should use the most common English rendition, or a suitable name of the Anecdote, like the current Diogenes and Alexander .  If we're looking for a specific rule about phrases like this, if they've acquired a literature of their own, I'd give them an article (which turns out to be in line with the GNG, fwiw.)   DGG ( talk ) 21:15, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Renaming to Diogenes and Alexander removed whatever "rationale" there was. East of Borschov 21:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * [EC] Keep per DGG, East of Borschov, and WP:HEY. Bearian'sBooties 21:42, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I never thought I'd say it, but keep per DGG. There's conceivably a case for merging this (although per DGG I think a weak one) but even so, merging would not require deletion, so this nomination should fail.--Scott Mac 21:54, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per DGG and Scott Mac. This is the sort of article that make it all worthwhile.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  22:19, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - if I can vote against my own nomination. We effectively have a brand new page called Diogenes and Alexander in which Interim velim a sole mihi non obstes! is now redirected to. I do not want to see Diogenes and Alexander deleted! - that is not what I nominated, but there we go. :) Singinglemon (talk) 22:26, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It's a keeper alright; the original title was misguided but this meeting has caused much debate in the ensuing years and is a properly encyclopaedic subject. pablo 22:31, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep as Diogenes and Alexander. This article is now a redirect, which could usefully be deleted, if all substantive links to the old ttile are uodated to the present one.  However, redirects are harmless and cheap.  Peterkingiron (talk) 22:46, 15 August 2010 (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.