Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lord of Asia


 * 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 redirect to Alexander the Great. The general consensus here is that a stand-alone article is not merited. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:07, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Lord of Asia

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Only a single reference to Britannica, totally unnecessary as a standalone article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:19, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:19, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:19, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:19, 20 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete no reason for standalone article, can be added as one of Alexander's many titles if not there already. Mztourist (talk) 04:26, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. It could be expanded into a standalone article. There are multiple papers dealing with Alexander's use of the title King (or Lord) of Asia. If someone wishes to write in any depth on this, they should do it here not at Alexander's article, which is a 176,218-byte long GA. Srnec (talk) 04:38, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * A prelimnary search did not find any sources that discussed the title "Lord of Asia" specifically, can you name the sources in question? Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:57, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Copy-pasting Google's citations:
 * Sullivan, Vickie. "Alexander the Great as “Lord of Asia” and Rome as His Successor in Machiavelli's Prince." The Review of Politics 75.4 (2013): 515-537.
 * Hammond, Nicholas GL. "The Kingdom of Asia and the Persian Throne." Antichthon 20.1986 (1986): 73.
 * Nawotka, Krzysztof. "Persia, Alexander the Great and the Kingdom of Asia." Klio 94.2 (2012): 348-356.
 * Mavrojannis, Theodoros. "ALEXANDER THE GREAT «KING OF ASIA» AT ARBELA AND BABYLON IN OCTOBER 331 BC HIS ECUMENICAL MACEDONIAN-‐‑PERSIAN IDEOLOGY." rivista di geografia storica del mondo antico e di storia della geografia (2017): 121.
 * FREDRICKSMEYER, ERNST. "Kingship of Asia." Alexander the Great in Fact and Fiction (2002): 136.
 * These are just works that directly reference the title (king or lord of Asia) in the title (of the paper). This does not include any works which discuss the title in any depth without referring to it in their titles. Clearly there is enough to sustain an article. Srnec (talk) 05:09, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Krzysztof Nawotka, 2012 indicates that the title was effectively the Greek synonym for "King of the Persian Empire". Fredricksmeyer suggests that rather than representing a continuation of the Persian empire, the adoption of the title marks a clean break between the Persian Empire and Alexander's. This is probably worth a small paragraph in the main Alexander article or maybe in Macedonia (ancient kingdom), but I don't think that it is necessary as a standalone article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:25, 21 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete anything we need to say about this can adequately be said on the article on Alexander the Great. There is no need for a seperate ariticle on this title.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:15, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm interested in why you think we need to say so little? If scholars can devote pages to it, surely we can devote a few paragraphs. And yet a few more paragraphs are not what Alexander the Great needs at 176,218 bytes. Srnec (talk) 01:21, 22 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete - agree with Jack Pack Lambert. Agricolae (talk) 14:42, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Alexander the Great. The article indicates that this was a title given to Alexander and held by two successors who were only titular kings; also claimed by certain successor dynasties, without exercising authority as such.  Peterkingiron (talk) 18:38, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect although it is very important, it does not merit a single article, especially one this short. EPIC STYLE (LET'S TALK) 02:29, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete In Greek it's mainly a description: "κύριος του/της" = lord/king/sovereign etc of (whatever). Cf. this, where a reference to Antigonus I Monophthalmus as "κύριος τῆς Ἀσίας" (lord of Asia), and Demetrius I of Macedon as "κύριος τῆς Συρίας, τῆς Φοινίκης καὶ τῆς Κύπρου" (lord of Syria, Phoinike and Cyprus). This is also pretty obvious from the aforementioned article of Vickie Sullivan: in their conclusion writes "The response that arises from this reading of the work is that although his conquest, which made him “lord of Asia” …" (op.cit., p.537); “lord of Asia”, lord without capital L and the term in (what look to me as) scare quotes. ǁ ǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 21:14, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * If we were only talking about the phrase "lord of Asia", you would be right. But this article is clearly about Alexander's title, which is more usually given as "king of Asia" (basileus tes Asias). Nor was this a description. Plutarch says he was "proclaimed" with this title in a ceremony. I'm surprised by the delete !votes given how much has been written about the title and its claims (far more than what I pasted above). Filling out this article would not be at all difficult. Srnec (talk) 05:35, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Plutarch in Alexander, 18.8 (or 18.5 in some eds.) writes: "Ἀλέξανδρον δὲ τῆς μὲν Ἀσίας κρατήσειν, ὥσπερ ἐκράτησε Δαρεῖος, ἐξ ἀστάνδου βασιλεὺς γενόμενος", that Alexander would rule Asia (verb κρατήσειν = το become lord, king, ruler) = "Alexander would be master of Asia, just as Dareius became its master when he was made king instead of royal courier" (English transl. by Bernadotte Perrin, available at perseus.tufts.edu). ǁ ǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 23:46, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I was referring to Plut. Alex. 34.1. Srnec (talk) 04:45, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * "Τοῦτο τῆς μάχης ἐκείνης λαβούσης τὸ πέρας, ἡ μὲν ἀρχὴ παντάπασιν ἡ Περσῶν ἐδόκει καταλελύσθαι, βασιλεὺς δὲ τῆς Ἀσίας Ἀλέξανδρος ἀνηγορευμένος, ἔθυε τοῖς θεοῖς μεγαλοπρεπῶς, καὶ τοῖς φίλοις ἐδωρεῖτο πλούτους καὶ οἴκους καὶ ἡγεμονίας" = The battle having had this issue, the empire of the Persians was thought to be utterly dissolved, and Alexander, proclaimed king of Asia, made magnificent sacrifices to the gods and rewarded his friends with wealth, estates, and provinces . What that suppose to prove, beyond the apparent fact ? Alexander, after beating the Persians ("the enemy had been utterly defeated and was in flight"; Plut. Alex. 33.7) became the ruler of their Empire, king, ruler of "Asia". So, mentioning this deserves an article in WP ? ǁ ǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 08:37, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Your interpretation of the primary source is of no use here. Arrian quotes a letter of Alexander to Darius in which he asks to be addressed as king of Asia. Is this a mere description? The title deserves an article because its meaning has been discussed extensively by scholars. Above I cited five papers that come up on Google Scholar because they have the title in English in their title. That does not include papers about the subject which do not reference the title explicitly in their title, papers not in English and any books that devote several paragraphs or pages to the subject. So, for example, I did not cite:
 * F. Muccioli, "‘Il re dell’Asia’: ideologia e propaganda da Alessandro Magno a Mitridate VI", Simblos. Scritti di storia antica 4 (2004), pp. 105-158. (53 pages!)
 * Paul J. Kosmin, The Land of the Elephant Kings (HUP, 2014), at pp. 121–28.
 * Fredricksmeyer, Ernst A. "Alexander, Zeus Ammon, and the conquest of Asia." Transactions of the American Philological Association 121 (1991): 199-214.
 * It easily meets WP:N. That is all. Srnec (talk) 20:03, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Not really; that is just your way of interpreting things (as I see it). Once it's "king of Asia"; another time "master" or "lord", and most of the times with no capital initial in the title. One way or another there is no reason for a standalone article. I can appreciate your reasoning for the opposite, but this is my opinion; to me it is a sound judgment on the subject, and it is not going to change. Anyway, all arguments, for or against, are well presented and extensively explaned, so there is no reason to keep this discussion going on. ǁ ǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 10:07, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:30, 29 December 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment. We have a template full of articles on ancient West Asian titulature at Template:Ancient Mesopotamian royal titles, so one article on Alexander's title hardly seems out of place. Srnec (talk) 17:08, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Opal&#124;zukor (discuss) 12:40, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Alexander the Great. Everything in this article is better included in the target. There is no properly sourced material to merge and unsourced material should not be inserted into other articles.  // Timothy ::  talk  11:51, 11 January 2021 (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.