Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pegasis


 * 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 Pegasides. To begin with, clear consensus to not delete. The general feeling is that what folks like Ovid write about tends to be notable by default. But later in the discussion our resident classicists point out, and apparently uncontroversially, that this is actually a content fork of Pegasides. It can be worked out editorially whether anything in the history of this one-sentence stub is worth merging.  Sandstein  18:37, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Pegasis

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The subject is a little-known fictional entity written about by Ovid long ago. I couldn't find enough coverage to pass WP:GNG and refused letting this be a redirect, so I'm asking for deletion. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 01:24, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 01:25, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 01:25, 20 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep: sources both seem solid, and scope for people believing her to be a typo is so great that it seems useful to have a brief article on her, with sources, to show otherwise. Pam  D  11:23, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you, that was my edit summary, I was not expecting so much huhu for attempting to repair a mis-redirect&mdash; @Troutman's reflexive revert, to a horse, which she is not, w/o prior discussion came across like a knee jerk  WurmWoode  T   17:54, 23 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep and expand. Fictional entity written about by Ovid. Artw (talk) 13:59, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep The two references in the article are modern sources. One of them cites Ovid and the other cites Plutarch.  There are thus at least two classical sources, not just Ovid.  Quintus would appear to be a third.  I also found in Stories of Ancient Greece an intersection between the stories of Pegasis and the actual Pegasus to add even more to the confusion.  That book appears to have material that could expand the article beyond the current stub. SpinningSpark 14:28, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Wait, where does one cite Plutarch? I must have missed it. The Encyclopedia of Fairies in World Folklore and Mythology cites Ovid and Parada, and the other one is Parada, who seems to cite Quintus Smyrnaeus. But Ovid seems relatively clearly to be referring to Oenone (seem my comment). --tronvillain (talk) 17:13, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I got it from the convenience link in the cite (which I have only just realised is a different website from the cite which is to a book). The entry there is "Emathion 5. Father by Pegasis of Atymnius 3 and Diomedes 4 [Plu.Rom.2.1; QS.3.300]". The abbreviation "Plu" means Plutarch no? SpinningSpark 17:34, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah, it's the Emathion entry that cites "Romulus" in Plutarch's Lives, but that appears to be to establish Emathion as father of Diomedes, since it doesn't mention Pegasis. Perhaps it's different in the original, but the various translations I can find actually say things like "Some, that Romus, the Son of Emathion(4), whom Diomede fent from Troy", "some, Romus, the son of Emathion, Diomede, having sent him from Troy", and "or Romus, the son of Emathion, whom Diomedes sent from Troy". --tronvillain (talk) 18:00, 21 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment. Chris, I am not surprised your redirect was reverted. I assumed you had redirected to somewhere where the subject was actually discussed, like a poem of Ovid.  In fact, you had redirected to the unrelated Pegasus.  This nomination strikes me as being simply spiteful in not getting your way as indicated by your talk page comment. SpinningSpark 14:47, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * First, please assume good faith. Accusing me of nominating articles out of spite is not only wrong, it demonstrates you falsely believe you hold the moral high ground. Second, I merely returned this to the redirect created in January 2009. Restoring the redirect was my effort to avoid deletion by keeping this as a relevant search term, since the entity itself is not generally notable. WurmWoode, in their indignation, seemed to feel that this fictional character "deserved" better than a redirect. My comment to them was meant to indicate that I could have explained my rationale in more detail (although my edit summary explained GNG wasn't met), Finally, I don't see the significant coverage of the subject that GNG requires. Some of the sources presented (including the ones you mentioned) might be primary sources as I don't know which author invented those characters. I'm disappointed that you chose to make a veiled personal attack rather than a policy-based rationale. That you don't like my nomination or that you think I'm wrong is not grounds to make accusations, especially in your role as admin.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 15:20, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I did assume good faith, I assumed you had redirected to somewhere where the information could be WP:PRESERVEd. This turned out to not be the case.  My keep rationale was made before I read your talk page comment and was entirely unconnected with it.  Your argument that you were merely restoring an original redirect is disengenuous.  That redirect was created before any information on Pegasis existed on Wikipedia and so restoring it was effectively deleting the article.  You claimed in your message to WurmWoode that "[r]edirection was an alternative to deletion".  Well no it wasn't.  Not in any meaningful sense.  By trying to identify the "inventor" of the "fictional character" you are showing an ignorance of classical mythology.  Nearly all characters in classical mythology are rooted in an oral tradition that predates the written record by many centuries.  "Primary source" in this context is meaningless. Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 16:30, 20 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Being written by Ovid a long time ago is a reason to keep, not a reason to delete. Andrew D. (talk) 23:29, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * "Being written by Ovid a long time ago is a reason to keep" Please show us where in WP:N it says that. If your point here at AfD is to say ILIKEIT, you should probably just stay off of AfD. Your behavior confuses new editors that don't know better. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 00:25, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * My comment reflects the nomination. "Turn-about is fair play". Andrew D. (talk) 16:44, 21 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Redirect: There doesn't appear to be enough here to establish notability, but there's already Pegasides where it says "Pegasides are connected with the term Pegasis, which means all that descended from Pegasus or originated from him." And as it also mentions there, Ovid's use of "Pegasis" is to Oenone (or Eonone). It might be worth mentioning on those pages though. --tronvillain (talk) 15:55, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The two references that existed on the page appear to both depend on the single line from Quintus Smyrnaeus, "Next his weapon pierc'd Atymnius, whom the nymph with golden locks, Bright Pegasis, to brave Emalion bore, Where deep Granicus rolls his lucid stream.", which hardly constitutes extensive coverage. --tronvillain (talk) 16:12, 21 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Redirect to either Atymnius or Emalion, or make a disambiguation page reflecting the fact that "Pegasis" is an epithet referring to anyone or anything associated with Pegasus or fountain nymphs, as well as the mother of Atymnius and Diomedes (not the famous Diomedes, apparently). The Quintus Smyrnaeus reference is the only one I could find that specifically names the mother; the others are either oblique references to the other members of this family, or other uses of "Pegasis", as in Ovid.  One of the two modern dictionaries cites two sources: the other one, and a work attributed to Ovid under the title of "Ovid", which is clearly a mistake; but I couldn't find any other references to "Pegasis" in Ovid; just the one describing Oenone as a Pegasis, or fountain nymph—i.e. an epithet of hers, not her name.  I would skip this source, since it doesn't add anything to the other two, or to Ovid, if you add the use of "Pegasis" as an epithet.  The Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology has an entry, but it doesn't add anything that hasn't been discussed here; I checked under each of the names (Pegasis, Emalion, Atymnius, Diomedes) just to make sure I'd looked at all of the possible references.  I might still cite it as a general reference for the term as an epithet, although it doesn't have anything to say about the specific Pegasis we're discussing.  P Aculeius (talk) 19:16, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * A disambiguation page would work for me as long as any encyclpaedic information is first merged to Pegasides or elsewhere. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 21:30, 21 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Pegasides (the plural form of the same word). A disambiguation page Pegasis would also work, but scarcely anything on it could be claimed as notable, and I don't feel confident that footnoted disambiguation pages are a long term stable solution to anything. Therefore, since the page Pegasides already makes good sense and explains things, information on individual nymphs whose name was (apparently) Pegasis can be confidently added to it. (I gather there was originally a redirect from Pegasis to Pegasus, but I don't know any reason why.) Andrew Dalby 14:55, 27 June 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.