Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Roman usurpers


 * 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   Snow Keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:54, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

List of Roman usurpers

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Just a list of articles... unsure why it is notable. ReformedArsenal (talk) 19:32, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Looks like a fine list with clearcut criteria. Usurpers and would-be usurpers of major empires are plenty notable. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:19, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - Like all lists, it is a useful "one-stop shop" for anyone interested in researching or reading about a particular topic (in this case Roman usurpers) without having to find out in the first instance who they all actually were. And if you delete this one, why stop there? Why not delete List of popes, List of Roman consuls, List of English monarchs, List of Star Trek: The Original Series episodes, etc, etc, etc? It is notable by virtue of the fact that all the people it lists are notable, surely. Oatley2112 (talk) 00:26, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't give them ideas! UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 15:05, 25 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. The nominator seems to be unaware that we keep and maintain lists of articles. If this was the sole basis for his nomination, he should withdraw it upon learning that we do in fact do that. postdlf (talk) 00:58, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Most lists are lists of articles. I am sure there are any number of people interested in roman usurper emperors. The list does define what an usurper means; you could quibble with the definition, but it is clear the scope can be meaningfully defined. Churn and change (talk) 04:51, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. The subject is notable, and the scope of the list is defined and not indiscriminate.-- xanchester  (t)  16:48, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 24 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep as per above. It's a list with a finite number of entries, and the criteria are well-defined. I don't see where this fails to meet our policy on lists. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 15:05, 25 October 2012 (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.