Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marriages of Pompey the Great




 * 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 keep. There is a narrow consensus to keep at this time. BD2412 T 02:59, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Marriages of Pompey the Great

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

The article was unilaterally pushed from draftspace (at Draft:Marriages of Pompey the Great) by User:Avilich recently, in relation to a deletion discussion (here). The sole author of the page, User:UndercoverClassicist has indicated that this move will be to the detriment of the development of the article (seen here), and requested my aid with nominating it to move it back to draft/userspace. Given the circumstances, I recommend it be user-fyed, rather than draftified, again. Iazyges  Consermonor   Opus meum  14:12, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, History,  and Politics.  Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  14:12, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. If the creator wants to work on it in userspace, s/he can duplicate it there. I see no need to remove it from public view. Srnec (talk) 14:57, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * That would disrupt the article history, and necessitate a copy-paste. The article is only roughly half-complete at the moment, so this is no small amount. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  15:02, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete in main and move to userspace per nominator's rationale. jengod (talk) 15:21, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete and move to userspace per jengod and User:Iazyges (whom I asked to create this request) above. I'm very happy for anyone who wants to continue helping with it to do so, but it's really not ready for mainspace at the moment and it is, frankly, a little embarrassing to have what is effectively my own half-finished work out there in the public sphere. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 16:03, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment maybe draft space would be for the best.★Trekker (talk) 17:40, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep: This perhaps shouldn't have come to main space the way it did, but I see no reason why the article can't be improved in main space now that it is there (that's what WP is about, after all...). Furius (talk) 17:43, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. I am sympathetic to the fact that the creator did not want to publish the article, but I can see no real legitimate reason to re-draftify or userfy the article. WP:Drafts specifically says that An article created in draftspace does not belong to the editor who created it, and any other user may edit, publish, redirect, merge or seek deletion of any draft. The article is not in such a bad state as to need draftification on its own merit, and there's nothing to stop people improving it in mainspace. That said, I don't care so much as to strongly object to userfying as a courtesy. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:43, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep: Notable topic; not a big deal that it is a little prematurely in main. However, Avilich should be reminded not to mess about with drafts other users are actively working on, as there is no time limit. Curbon7 (talk) 20:04, 26 January 2023 (UTC)


 *  Reuser-fy  move to keep on 29 January 2023 as UndercoverClassicists work on this article is just too good to be deleted. But since the draft was released into article mainspace without the consent of the draft creator. Drafts should be given the time to develop since some editors might want to create/nominate an article they feel comfortable with either to DYK or GA. At least the draft creator could have been consulted before their draft was released into article main space. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paradise Chronicle (talk • contribs) 02:35, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete, but keep each article on his wives. I don't think there is a need for this synth article, which subject can be covered in both Pompey and articles about his wives. In addition, I think there is enough ground to create an article about Aemilia (wife of Pompey)—right now the only wife without an article. T8612  (talk) 09:27, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. As Furius and Caecilius point out, nothing prevents this from being improved in article space, and frankly it's not that bad considering that this arose out of having one of the individual articles—likely the most substantial—nominated for deletion.  Creating a page like this was the best alternative to deletion; deleting it, whether by turning it into a draft or something else, potentially eliminates the contents from the encyclopedia if the other article is deleted.  P Aculeius (talk) 17:21, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * But if the other articles are kept, there is no need to keep this one? T8612  (talk) 01:50, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * If all of the wives were adequately covered elsewhere, then there would be no need to duplicate the material here, but given the number of them and how little is known about them—other than who they were related to—it still seems like a good idea to consolidate them into one article. P Aculeius (talk) 13:32, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I disagree, as I said in the ANI, I like "Wives of ____" articles but they should not be used at the expense of individual articles about women, doing that sets a dangerous precedent about the coverage of women on Wikipedia.★Trekker (talk) 14:31, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think it sets any precedent regarding the coverage of women—it's simply better to keep related material together when it's pretty skimpy and liable to be nominated for deletion, even if the ultimate result of the discussion is, as it has been in this instance, "keep". This is especially the case when so little is known about someone that most of the discussion concerns the other people to whom the subject was related, since that is a constant theme of deletion discussions (the lack of "inherited notability").  And even if the article on Antistia can be beefed up to avoid future deletion nominations, the fact that there are other wives about whom even less can be said—or at least has been written in other articles—is a strong argument to keep this one.  P Aculeius (talk) 18:38, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thing is, before the Antistia article was expanded upon due to the AFD one could make the same claim about her as about Pompey's other wives, truth is that when it comes to ancient women there is often a lot of scholarly coverage which is burried and hard to find, I feel fairly certain that Aemilia could have a good article as well, but if we decide that its ok to have "Wives of __" articles instead of an individual article that does set a dangerous predecent in my opinion.★Trekker (talk) 21:13, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Now that the discussion on Antistia (wife of Pompey) has closed with Keep, this article needs even more work, since the Antistia section (currently almost identical with some of that article's sections) needs to be reworked as a WP:SUMMARYSTYLE distillation. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 16:43, 28 January 2023 (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.