Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laudatio Iuliae amitae


 * 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 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caeciliusinhorto (talk • contribs) 08:30, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Laudatio Iuliae amitae

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

a remnant of 2009, when for some reason articles from citizendium were imported into wikipedia. only source is to quote the speech. yes, the article was gutted, but the original was a joke. lettherebedarklight晚安 12:11, 12 July 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 13:39, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. lettherebedarklight晚安 12:11, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. The references at https://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks:1&q=%22Laudatio+Iuliae+amitae%22+-wikipedia discuss the significance of the speech. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:02, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * these are trivial mentions. lettherebedarklight晚安 13:04, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * No, not trivial. Books like Caesar as an Orator discuss this speech as an example of Caesar's work, and the fact that the speech has survived intact for 2000+ years is further indication of its notability. Earlier versions of the article use the language of scholars of rhetoric and of classics, but should not have been characterized as a joke to a layperson. The removal of the specialist text was incorrect and should be reversed. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:49, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Books like Caesar as an Orator discuss this speech as an example of Caesar's work
 * literally the definition of a trivial mention.
 * the fact that the speech has survived intact for 2000+ years is further indication of its notability
 * WP:ITSOLD.
 * Earlier versions of the article use the language of scholars of rhetoric and of classics, but should not have been characterized as a joke to a layperson.
 * ok, let's read the article then.
 * do please explain how this isn't a joke.
 * lettherebedarklight晚安 09:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep Nonsense nomination, the speech is one of the most defining moments of Caesars early career, displaying his willingness to be bold and controversial.★Trekker (talk) 09:54, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @startrekker: citation needed. lettherebedarklight晚安 12:27, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article could use some expansion, but the material for doing so clearly exists.  It's missing some key points: namely that the illustrious ancestry claimed by the Julii and mentioned in this speech became key to the establishing Caesar's claim to be an inherently extraordinary individual—or at least the claim of his supporters, and certainly the imperial cult after his death; and the fact that orations of this kind were traditionally given only for Roman men—Caesar broke tradition by giving an oration in praise of a woman.
 * I agree that the description highlighted in green above is somewhat ridiculous, and doesn't need to go in our article—but it's not there anymore. It was removed with the "analysis" section that previously made up more than half the article, and never replaced.  The nomination suggests that this article should be deleted because it was poorly written and based on a poor source.  But there are lots of good sources available, as Eastmain points out (whether some of them are "trivial" mentions is irrelevant; some of them are clearly not, and it is unnecessary to cite trivial ones).  And the quality of the writing can always be improved; the fact that nobody has replaced the former "analysis" section with something more encyclopedic doesn't make the article beyond improving.  I think that if WP:BEFORE had been followed, this nomination would not have been made.  P Aculeius (talk) 14:48, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * 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.