Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marble slab of Pharasmanes


 * 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 merge to Fasti Ostienses. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 03:09, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Marble slab of Pharasmanes

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails notability As far as I've been able to determine, this piece of the Fasti Ostienses has never been referred to by this name. And small wonder: there is no reason for a lengthy inscription comprised of lists of consuls, local duoviri, & the occasional public event. In other words, the Fasti is a public journal covering parts of 3 centuries, & the visit of Pharasmanes was simply one event recorded in the inscription; the Fasti Ostienses was not created to record the event itself. Moreover, this fragment of the inscription (Og) has not attracted a notable body of commentary that I have been able to find. Seeing how this article was created by a now-absent editor with a tendentious interest in Georgian topics -- but without any citation of Georgian sources, not even an equivalent article on xmf.wikipedia (the Georgian Wikipedia) -- I can't defend its notability. While there is some important information in the article, it should be added to the appropriate articles (e.g., Pharasmanes II of Iberia) & this one deleted. llywrch (talk) 21:38, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:16, 2 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Merge with Fasti Ostienses. Even if it were independently notable, there's no reason to have an article on a fragment of a text that's longer than our article on the text as a whole. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 22:54, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, much of the content better belongs at Pharasmanes II of Iberia, although a sentence or two might be added to Fasti Ostienses. (And as soon as I work thru the Latin of Vidman's Fasti Ostienses: edendos, illustrandos, restituendos, curavit (2nd ed. 1982), I'll be improving the latter article -- llywrch (talk) 01:49, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree with the proposed deletion, and merges of content; the title doesn't reflect standard terminology, and the scholarly commentary on this particular fragment seems too slender to justify separate treatment. Haploidavey (talk) 22:22, 8 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Merge with Fasti Ostienses this seems the right place to put the content to me. It is about the marble slab rather than the person. Content can also be merged with Pharasmanes II of Iberia as needed. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:43, 10 January 2017 (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.