Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 85


 * 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. (non-admin closure)  HurricaneFan 25  00:02, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 85

 * – ( View AfD View log )

One of a series of articles all about various individual papyri. Possibly notable as a group, but I dont think each individual paper is notable. All articles by same author, using same references (2) - even further indicating it is group notability (if any) Gaijin42 (talk) 18:47, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note that we do already have an article Oxyrhynchus Papyri into which these could conceivably be merged as you suggest --Miskwito (talk) 19:16, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * They can't effectively be merged there as there are thousands of them.&mdash; alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 18:55, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * comment&mdash;has anyone been able to craft a search string which will pick mentions of this papyrus out from the vast literature on these papyri? i can't seem to do it, but i hope maybe the nominator was able to?&mdash; alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 19:29, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I've only encountered a couple examples where Oxyrhynchus Papyri are written out like this. More likely searches (and titles) in descending order of common usage:
 * As for notability, could someone point me toward a policy that would come close to applying to this type of object? I'm (full disclosure) a papyrologist, so I could use some guidance. The Cardiff Chestnut (talk) 04:40, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * As for notability, could someone point me toward a policy that would come close to applying to this type of object? I'm (full disclosure) a papyrologist, so I could use some guidance. The Cardiff Chestnut (talk) 04:40, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * As for notability, could someone point me toward a policy that would come close to applying to this type of object? I'm (full disclosure) a papyrologist, so I could use some guidance. The Cardiff Chestnut (talk) 04:40, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * As for notability, could someone point me toward a policy that would come close to applying to this type of object? I'm (full disclosure) a papyrologist, so I could use some guidance. The Cardiff Chestnut (talk) 04:40, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 20:32, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. &mdash; alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 20:43, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * keep&mdash;i think WP:GNG will do it. there's grenfell, the source that's already in the article, and there is this which makes two that discuss this papyrus at length.&mdash; alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 04:59, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * comment&mdash;Additionally, Grenfell and Hunt, the main reference in the article, is essentially an encyclopedia, which has at least a page on each of the papyri. We accept the presence of articles in other encyclopedias as prima facie evidence of notability.  I think that we should do the same here.&mdash; alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 18:55, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per alf.laylah.wa.laylah. This seems to be notable enough on its own--and have enough written about it that it can be reasonably detailed or expanded--to justify a separate article. --Miskwito (talk) 19:03, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * keep I wasasked to come here, but would have seen this anyway. All such documents about which there is any degree of scholarly discussion or publication is notable. The jstor article proves the notability, though I would include this even without it. I wouldn't be the least concerned about overwhelming WP, because very few of the available papyrii have yet been formally published, and in any case we're not paper papyrus. It would be very helpful if we are fortunate to have a professional available, if they were to write as many of these articles as possible. they're exactly the sort of article WP needs.  DGG ( talk ) 19:16, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. I was also hinted in this direction, but, as noted above, I have a fondness for sifting through ancient garbage and should have noted this discussion when it began. I, too, think that this piece, at least, satisfies both the letter and the spirit of WP:GNG.  The articles in this series that User:Leszek Jańczuk has been creating are, while not currently classed as stubs, kernels.  Not a single piece in the P.Oxy. series has not received coverage outside of their initial publication.  These papyri are constantly being studied and reevaluated in the light of new evidence or, as is the case with Coles's ZPE article that ALWL found, simply improved readings which increase the value of the piece.  And, building upon DGG's points about notability of the initial publication itself and the ratio of published-to-unpublished papyri: pieces aren't published because of the inherent interest of being ancient--if it's been published in P.Oxy., it's been chosen from a collection of over 400,000 fragments because something about the piece is unique against the backdrop of our current knowledge of antiquity.


 * Comment. In theory, I agree with the reasoning of those voting "keep." In practice, however, I wouldn't want to see an editor create a whole series of these stubs, virtually indistinguishable from each other. The point of having an independent article should be to offer a more in-depth look at that individual papyrus. Unless an editor or a group of editors is willing to do the kind of development that demonstrates independent notability, I'm wary of keeping it. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:57, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you think that since the volumes become progressively more topically organized that it might make more sense to present them as units, since the groups might be easier for the reader to contextualize and for the editor to write an informed description? But, then, we might run the risk of going from mass stubbing to mass listing. The Cardiff Chestnut (talk) 22:09, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Looking over some of these, I'd say that since they all begin with an identical paragraph and depend on the same sources, they'd make a better list article, perhaps even a table. They differ only in identifying the sender/addressee, the physical size of the fragment, and perhaps a sentence of the content or situation. Although WP:Other stuff exists can be invoked to justify independent articles, I don't see as they stand what purpose they serve other than to create a great number of "articles" that are no such thing. The existing pages could be changed to redirects to a new list article. If someone wants to write a proper article on an individual papyrus in future, the redirect page can be converted to a proper article. Cynwolfe (talk) 23:29, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Against my bryteophilia: I should note that glossed over in my panegyric of P.Oxy. above is the fact that an editio princeps of a papyrus involves nothing more than description, transcription and brief explication. One could argue that a papyrological editio princeps is in fact equivalent to a primary source since it is the base element of text necessary for anyone other than the editor to have knowledge of it. (The Odeon isn't showing papyri this Friday.) When one speaks of significant coverage, I don't then know what the threshold really is. P.Rev., the Milan Papyrus (sic), the Derveni papyrus, the Artemidorus papyrus--these are items as equivalent as they can be in coverage with a MS like Venetus A. (There are more landmark papyri than Venetus A's.) I guess my question is, before moving to a list (we already have one anyway), do we judge papyri in relation to manuscripts, in which case next to none should really have articles, or as realia, in which case lists would be the default (like coins), and still the precious and beloved few would have articles? An example: a friend of mine published this text: "Markianos to his brother Thonios, greetings. Go to our brother P[...]on. And if he makes a payment to you (sing.), receive it (?). Deposit into the account of the men from (?) Apollonios. For I thank you very much that you are going to the auction (?)[...] thus. Other [....]s have been bought which (?) I sent ... not ...". Wikipedia article or not? To what list would it belong? Is a list an academic way of politely saying notability isn't inherited? (Not that anyone poo-pooed Broughton's list.) The Cardiff Chestnut (talk) 00:49, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, I'm not opposed in theory to this series of articles, nor to the "keep" reasoning. Just that the new articles don't seem to add much info not already in the individual entry for the papyrus in the main article's tables. So why should a separate article be created? (My suggestion for a separate list article should've been framed as "Should the tables in the existing article be moved to a separate list article?") Cynwolfe (talk) 18:04, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that there's enough information on each of these in Grenfell and Hunt alone to expand each article. As the IP noted below, people are already doing this.  I'm doing it in passes, with a little more each time, but even without moving into the 20th and 21st century literature, there's enough in there to expand them all quite a bit.  Grenfell and Hunt is PD, so I think that this is roughly analogous to a WP:CATH situation, both for notability (not directed at Cynwolfe, who agrees that they're notable) and for possibility of expansion.  Having separate articles will allow categorization through specialized lists organized along multiple dimensions; I'm thinking e.g. by date, by topic, by language, by number, etc.  A stub for each one seems like a natural place to start this process.&mdash; alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 18:26, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep The papyrus (and others like it) are discussed at length in reliable sources on the Oxyrhynchus papyri, and in books on archeology, on Roman society, or on whatever else the papyrus sheds light on. Plenty of material for a good article. There do seem to be quite a few of these stubs, but they can all in principle be expanded, and existence as a stub is an invitation to do so. Some have already been expanded a little. -- 202.124.73.219 (talk) 12:14, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * What can I say? I was encouraged to create manuscript articles by many users on several wikis and I like manuscripts. Biblical, non-biblical - every ancient or mediaeval manuscript is interesting for me, but I prefer Greek manuscripts. It is my hobby. It is close to my job (exegesis of the New Testament). I am also translator of the New Testament (ecumenical). Series of the articles? Yes, I have completed Louis de Funès films (118 created by me, 29 by other users), films of Jean Marais (43 arts), papyri of the New Testament, Uncials of the New Testament. I am intending to create articles about manuscripts of Homer's poems, as well as manuscripts of other famous ancient works. Only six manuscripts of the Gospel of Thomas were survived, I have created articles for four of them. When I had started with Oxyrhynchus papyri I thought about 10-20% manuscripts. Perhaps I like series. I do not like red links (de Funes, Jean Marais, etc.). Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 19:21, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge probably to a list (e.g. Oxyrhynchus Papyri 1-100) many papyrus fragments are notable but my experience in this field (which is actually one I have studied though not worked in) is that not all are notable and I don't see sufficient evidence that this one is best covered in a separate article.  Eluchil404 (talk) 05:19, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * No merge, just keep. The list would be too long. Additionally, there are reliable sources and PO85 needs its own article. Kmicic (talk) 21:31, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per the above. There's enough content to expand this and other similar articles, so keeping it makes sense. It looks like we have some expert attention on this one, which is all to the good. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 15:57, 8 November 2011 (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.