Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional Romans


 * 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   no consensus. Some weak Keep votes push this into NC territory. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

List of fictional Romans

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

List of fictional characters which violates WP:SALAT, WP:IINFO and WP:NOTDIR -arguably un-encyclopaedic cross-categorization - as per WP:Articles for deletion/List of fictional Armenians and WP:Articles for deletion/List of fictional New Zealanders Claritas § 09:49, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep It's trivial to find sources for this such as Ancient Rome in English fiction romantic and modern, Ancient Rome in the English novel, The Classical Roman Name in Historical Fiction, etc.  Not that one needs sources for obvious omissions like Ben Hur.  Colonel Warden (talk) 23:09, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete- I wholeheartedly endorse what Claritas says. Also, considering how often Rome appears in fiction it's clear that there should be many, many, many, many entries. Therefore this list can only ever be too incomplete to be useful or too sprawling and unmaintainable to be useful ie. listcruft one way or the other. Reyk  YO!  23:10, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The size of a list, or whether its incomplete or not, is not a valid reason to delete it.  D r e a m Focus  16:56, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom, per WP:NOTDIR and WP:SALAT. This would be a useless and unwieldily list if completed, which it never would be. Categories address this issue in a much better way. It's just WP:LISTCRUFT. Verbal chat  13:26, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * List allow more information than categories, although no shortage of space, so no reason not to have both.   D r e a m Focus  16:56, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Its gets coverage, and thus it meets all requirements for a Wikipedia article. Colonel Warden has listed books about this topic, and added references to the article.   D r e a m Focus  16:56, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:N - "A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines below and is not excluded by WP:NOT".Claritas § 17:56, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. I think the arguments above are trying to express that it would be impractical (or nearly impossible) to actually complete such a list, and furthermore, if it ever were completed, it would be so large as to be useless and unwieldy.  It is currently not that large, but it is also vastly incomplete, with virtually no chance at ever becoming complete.  Also, Claritas' links to past AfD's show a clear precedent in these types of articles.    Snotty Wong   comment 18:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for Rescue by the Article Rescue Squadron.   Snotty Wong   comment 18:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * CLARIFY: The article under discussion here was tagged for Rescue by User:Colonel Warden in seeking assistance with its improvement. 05:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep and reference better. The nominator's reading of WP:NOTDIR would preclude any list from being formed. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:04, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Please allow me time and I will ensure that the article is better referenced. Also, if there are articles such as List of fictional politicians etc, why should there not be an article for fictional Romans? --Crablogger (talk) 05:26, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. It might be something to do with the fact that I haven't got round to nominating List of fictional politicians for deletion yet. Claritas § 11:56, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep at least for now, but discuss serious cleanup and pruning concerns. I don't understand at all the claim that this is an "unencyclopedic cross-categorization"; those are just words&mdash;naked assertion of opinion&mdash;until someone substantively explains why the very concept of the list is somehow invalid.  I see nothing in any of the acronyms invoked (WP:SALAT, WP:NOTDIR, WP:IINFO) that would compel or counsel the deletion of this list.  The topic seems straightforward and simple enough, and there certainly is no shortage of notable examples.  So the only real concern I can identify here is a meaningful threshold for what fictional Romans should be included.  The list at present includes, for example, unseen "characters" from Monty Python's Life of Brian who exist only for the purpose of joke names.  There's also an issue of how to deal with fictionalized characters, where perhaps nothing more than a name or basic historical role is kept but the rest is pure invention (cf. Titus Pullo & Lucius Vorenus in the HBO Rome TV series).  Maybe the only practical way to organize this content is indirectly, through Fiction set in the Roman empire, if this list cannot exist without blowing up to every name mentioned in any work of fiction set in Ancient Rome.  But I'd like to see that discussion before coming to that conclusion rather than just a diarrhea of acronyms.  postdlf (talk) 15:53, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep – The argument that this material is best served by a category is a sieve as individual list entries, while sourced do not have their own articles. What would go in the category?  The WP:SALAT arguments, while interesting fail to address the entire intent of the section.  For example the last sentence in the section reads: …be prepared to explain why you feel this list contributes to the state of human knowledge.  Shouldn’t those that chose to delete it argue why it doesn’t.  The final argument that I find especially troublesome is this one repeated by several editors: …if it ever were completed, it would be so large as to be useless and unwieldy. It is currently not that large, but it is also vastly incomplete, with virtually no chance at ever becoming complete.  This says I guess that if the knowledge on any given subject is too large we delete that knowledge or if we can’t complete that knowledge we delete that knowledge.  If individual entries are otherwise notable, the number of those entries are irrelevant for deletion purposes.  Articles that grow beyond a practical size limit, can be refactored into more managable sub-topics—we do it all the time.  This list is no different.--Mike Cline (talk) 22:29, 15 July 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.