Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Roman Emperors from modern Serbia


 * 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   delete. It has been pointed out that an existing article covers what is essentially this topic in a properly sourced and verifiable version at Illyrian emperors. Early suggestions to move this to another name would have helped address the issue of original research but again, that suggestion has been rendered moot by the existence of the other article. Shereth 15:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

List of Roman Emperors from modern Serbia

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This article was created on the 4th of May this year, and I only happened to come across it fixing a typo a week later. It came to my attention again when the user User:Keep it Fake began arguing that the title was misleading as there was no Serbia then and moving the article. User:PajaBG, who created the article in the first place, moved it back arguing that the article title referred to "modern Serbia" and was as thus not misleading.

And me? I don't understand why this article exists, and I can not see anything that would merit it's existence. There are no other similar lists of Roman emperors by territory, and if such lists were to be created, surely they would go by the Roman names and boundaries of the territories of 2000 years ago.

The single reason I can see for why one would create such a list: some nationalistic desire to prove one's country's valor and strength, or something. Judging by User talk:PajaBG, this does not seem all too unlikely. Therefore, I argue that this conflict be resolved by deleting the battleground. Plrk (talk) 00:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable junction of territories. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 01:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - I'm not real fond of lists of this type which represent WP:OR and are generally hard to maintain. Presumably this one's a bit easier since the Roman Empire hasn't had much activity lately. Nevertheless, there's lots of original research, and only one reference, and it does seem to be a fairly nationalistic list. I always get comments when I suggest a WP:CATEGORY instead, but...I think that's the way to go on this one. It acknowledges a commonality and allows the interested reader to navigate through without being obtrusive and looking like it is pretending to be complete (as an encyclopedic list almost must by definition). Frank  |  talk  02:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - per above; I can't see that this is a valuable list to have. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 02:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and move to List of Roman Emperors from Pannonia; alternatively, merge to Pannonia; during the last couple of centuries of the Roman Empire (up to AD 476), the province on the other side of the Adriatic did have a significant influence in the Empire, but I agree that the title is misleading. Mandsford (talk) 04:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Unnecessary. We already have an article on emperors from this region: Illyrian emperors (this covers Pannonia). --Folantin (talk) 10:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, move to List of Roman Emperors from Pannonia, which was the period name of the region; a useful two-fold cross-categorization that could have other similar, useful counterparts. Celarnor Talk to me  04:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Unnecessary. We already have an article on emperors from this region: Illyrian emperors (this covers Pannonia). --Folantin (talk) 10:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete the modern Serbia is not coterminus with an ancient Roman province. Serbs were not even the occupants of the area. 70.51.8.112 (talk) 04:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, move to List of Roman Emperors from Pannonia. Though note that it would need some addittions if we do. Dimadick (talk) 05:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Unnecessary. We already have an article on emperors from this region: Illyrian emperors (this covers Pannonia). --Folantin (talk) 10:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment regarding Pannonia: what is now called Serbia includes parts of the Roman provinces Pannonia, Lower Pannonia and Illyricum. Plrk (talk) 12:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as a silly title which seems to imply time travel, or merge to List of Roman Emperors from Pannonia as a then-existing political/geographical entity. Edison (talk) 14:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep: I decided to create this page after an article (cited on the page) about Roman emperors born in these areas. Also, in the future, historical tours are planned which will connect the remains of all the major Roman settlements, including the birthplaces of the emperors. Article was accompanied with a nice map of the Roman monuments and markers pointing to the emperors origins, presented by the coins they coined (those who did). I didn't know so many of them were born just 100 to 150 kilometers away from my hometown so I wanted to share the info. I am sure that not many people know that either, some participating in this discussion obviously know even less (or the lack of knowledge is deliberate because the reasons listed are not really serious), so I think it is a good source of information. I hoped that in turn, a general article dealing with the regional origin of the Roman Emperors might develop out of this.


 * So what if there are no similar lists? How would Wikipedia develop if only what already exists can be added...it even sounds childish. And how something that you didn't know and then learn it should be deleted? It is a valid historical information about real people. It is not serious asking to delete such information when Wikipedia has thousands and thousands and thousands of pages dealing with video games and TV serial's eposodes, fictional characters from those games and episodes and all those invented TV "universes", legion poke-digi-something-mon animated characters, hundreds of porn stars of all kinds and lists accompanying them... So it does not seem all so unlikely that something else rolls from behind.


 * I agree that the title is not good. Giving the full explanation in the title would make it far too long and I couldn't come up with a better, shorter one. Maybe someone else can and that would be appreciated. But I don't understand why the article should be deleted because of the silly title? Shall we shoot all the people with funny names? Shouldn't the course of action be to fix it and to help to make it better? Let's delete the article cause I don't like the title...what kind of attitude is that? If you see a dwarf trying to pick an apple from the tree would you help him fix the problem or trip him cause he is short anyway?


 * Pannonia/Illyricum info is not correct. Pannonia (Lower/Secunda) actually occupied very small portion of what is Serbia today (but with at the time important Sirmium). Majority of it was, in different times, part of Moesia (Superior) while other parts made sections of the provinces: Dalmatia, Dacia (three of them, Traiana, Ripensis and Mediterranea), Thrace, Dardania, Praevalitana..It does not seem all so unlikely that someone don't know where Serbia actually is.


 * Even if it wouldn't be for the biased reason (more on that below) for it, moving this article to the Emperors from the Balkans is incorrect in every way. First, this list doesn't deal with the emperors from the entire Balkans and second, Sirmium, where most of them were born, is not on the Balkans at all. Should I also mention that the area was not called the Balkans until a millennium after the Romans? How come that is OK? Additionally, Serbia existed for centuries when Roman Empire was finally conquered by the Turks in 1453. For those who don't know, Byzantines called their state Roman Empire and themselves Romans.


 * There is no original research. All biographical info on the emperors, minimal as they are because I think that is appropriate for such article, are taken from the already existing separate pages of the respective Roman emperors. What original research?


 * I will repeat it: it is nowhere said that emperors where Serbs or that they were born in then Serbia. It is clearly stated in the very first sentence. That is the only mention of Serbia in the entire article and Serbs as a nation are not even mentioned once. Serbs did not live in that area at the time, but they didn't bring the territory with them when they came either, it was already there and those people were born there. It has nothing to do with Serbs, only with the territory. I can't even immagine why is this nationalistic (!?) so since there is no rational reason for that (especially repeating it even though it is not written in the article) it does not seem all so unlikely there must be something else.


 * Now, after the facts, maybe I should say something about the perspective behind all of this. Someone bothered to check my talk page but didn't bother to check KeepitFake's list of contributions. Even just a glimpse would be enough to point out the staunch anti-Serbian attitude so it does not seem all so unlikely that we have a case of an obsession of an ardent Albanian nationalist who roams the pages and removes Serbs from them. It does not seem all so unlikely that we maybe even have a case of allergy on every mention of Serbia so it must be removed, replaced or shown as the worst fascist nation everywhere. You don't need to be a doctor to recognize the symptoms, but I am neither allergist nor psychiatrist to help him. And person with such body of work brings an attention? But he is not a problem. I don't understand  people who wish to be involved and then basically say frivolous things like: yeah, yeah...it doesn't mention Serbs but it's nationalistic, yeah...it's already in Wikipedia but it is OR, yeah...silly title, who cares what's behind, let's kill it....


 * Talking of obsession, I also removed that nonsensical flood of boxes added to the article by KeepItFake or whatever number he is now. It may not be here for long, but it doesn't have to look like a circus. PajaBG (talk) 20:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Comments - Much ground is covered above. I will not presume to answer all of it but only a few points:
 * The article, as it stands, is almost entirely original research. There is only one reference for one item on the list. Wikipedia itself is not a valid source, so even if the rest of the information is contained within Wikipedia, it must be properly cited.
 * I agree the the poke-digi-tv-episode craze exists, and we must realize it is here to stay. However, I don't think that having a page for every episode of Friends is necessarily the same as creating this somewhat artificial list. This list tries to cover a topic that is clearly open to interpretation. The number and titles of the episodes of Friends are clearly knowable and known. Same goes for many poke-digi-tvshow-whatever. Not so a list of emperors from...somewhere that didn't exist way back when...see discussions above.
 * It's true that just because something doesn't already exist isn't a reason for it not to be created. No disagreement there.
 * It seems to me that if there cannot even be consensus on what the article's title should be, perhaps that's a good indication the article doesn't need to exist. Perhaps the information belongs elsewhere, in different articles. Or, perhaps a category (or series of them) would be useful for this? If the page is really a re-hash of information that is elsewhere, why not provide a category to simply point to existing pages? For example, see the Friends episodes category, which has only 15 entries but could be automatically expanded when someone adds an episode - just by adding the category to that new page. And, there's also a List of Friends episodes. Frank  |  talk  21:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The original published article doesn't just give the number, it lists and fully names (at least fuller than their names are given on Wikipedia) the emperors. That means I could tag it as a referrence to each name but to what purpose? Also, sourcing every of those few data given for each emperor, when they have their own, referrenced pages, also makes no practical point and only complicates things.
 * I am not going around deleting episodes, obscure toons, etc. I am against deleting any information from which I can learn something, that's the difference, especially when they are simply factographic, like this list. And we are back to the same point: that somewhere existed back then, it just wasn't called that way.
 * OK.At least one :o)
 * It is not a valid reason. For example, NATO bombed Serbia in 1999. We call it NATO agression, NATO calls it Operation Allied force. So, we will never agree how to title it, but it doesn't mean the article shouldn't be there, that it didn't happen or that it is not important because we can't decide how to call it. Drastic, but plastic example, though it could be applied to almost every conflict everywhere. As for the category, it could work, but with this reaction I have no reason to believe the category would fare any better than the article is. Maybe even worse cause there would be no place to explain anything (you know, Serbs the emperors and stuff) though that, apparently, doesn't help either. PajaBG (talk) 00:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * You should not have created such an article. Serbia has nothing to do with ancient Rome, Serbs didn't occupy the area, and the area was not politically divided into an area that is now Serbia. If you had wanted to create Emperors from the Balkans, atleast that would have a proper geographic basis as an argument, instead of no basis whatsoever for Serbia, except Serb nationalism, which violates NPOV 70.55.88.25 (talk) 04:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment regarding User:Keep it Fake: it does seem that this user is bent on proving something, but that does not mean this article shouldn't be deleted. Keep it Fake brought the article to my attention by simply editing it, as I earlier had corrected a typo in the article it was on my watchlist. Plrk (talk) 21:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. You edited the page, you put it on your watchlist, and only then KIF, in one of his bending efforts, brought it to your attention, as if it was hidden. PajaBG (talk) 00:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * At the time of writing, I have 678 pages on my watchlist. At the time of my semi-automated WP:AWB-assisted typo correction, I had about 1,200 pages on my watchlist. And as you surely know, pages don't show up on your watchlist if your edit was the last one - KIF happened to make an edit, which made it show up. However, how the article came to my attention is irrelevant. What is relevant is that the topic of the article is anachronistic - it makes as much sense as a List of Serb politicians from ancient Pannonia. Plrk (talk) 00:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Apart from the bizarre time travel implications of the title mentioned by Edison, the concept of Serbia has no meaning within Roman history. More importantly, we already have an article on emperors from this part of the Balkans: Illyrian emperors (which covers Illyricum and Pannonia). That's a term in use by scholars (there's a Britannica article under this title). We don't need original research in the cause of modern nationalism. It would be really absurd to distinguish between the "Serb" Claudius Gothicus and the "Croat" Diocletian. --Folantin (talk) 09:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as per Folantin. We have an article already - would this be considered a POV fork of that? I love the bit about planning some tours. Any regional articles on Roman Emperors should not use modern nationalist regional names. Doug Weller (talk) 11:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Folantin and Doug are correct. I'm sure this is valid content but not under this anachronistic title: send it elsewhere (Illyrian emperors). Moreschi (talk) (debate) 13:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per Folantin. --Dcfleck (talk) 21:29, 8 June 2008 (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.