Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Petraria Arcatinus


 * 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 delete. Spartaz Humbug! 05:51, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Petraria Arcatinus

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The type of catapult described in this article does not seem to be mentioned in any reliable historical sources. The word petraria or petrarium did exist, with the meaning "machine that hurls stones, petrary" (Dictionary of Medieval Latin from British Sources). But I can find no reliable source for the adjective arcatinus, and if it did exist, it would have to be arcatina, to agree with feminine petraria. The more reliable sources cited on this page seem to refer only to petraria (petrary). I believe "petraria arcatinus" is a fabrication which has spread through various amateur websites. The original editor acknowledged this problem in the article itself and on the talk page, but I think overstated the possibility that the "petraria arcatinus" actually existed. Lesgles (talk) 23:48, 17 February 2020 (UTC) Lesgles (talk) 15:07, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:11, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:11, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:11, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Do not agree. This type or catapult (a bow powered stone thrower with a swing arm throwing mechanism, very distinct form the lithobolos designs) is definitely not a modern fabrication from websites, with one of the earliest depictions found at this point being a Gustav Dore illustration from 1877. Numerous physical reproductions of this style of catapult exist around the world in museums and historical sites. While the actual existence of this catapult during the Crusades or at any other time has not been established and is definitely disputed, the existence of this type of catapult in our modern view of history, for at least one and a half centuries, can not be disputed. This only truly problematic issue here is the name of this catapult. The name may be a modern (20th century) creation. But this type of catapult has a much deeper history that can not be relegated to some sort of Internet meme. People have a legitimate interest in learning about it. Battling McGook (talk) 17:19, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that it is an interesting subject, and there is a resemblance between Doré's illustration and the image used in the article. It's even possible that later reconstructions were based on that illustration. But whether it's a modern (post-medieval) invention or not, we need to cite reliable sources. Lesgles (talk) 18:39, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

In answer to Elmidae's vote below and cited source on the arcuballista... I don't want to get too far into the weeds here, but reading this article underscores the real issue. Most people these days think "arcuballista" refers to a bow-powered weapon which shot bolts (i.e. very large arrows or spears). The catapult in question here is one that is bow-powered and shoots stones. Reading this article, you'll find that the authors here think arcuballista did not refer to a bow-powered weapon at all, but a torsion powered bolt-shooter with some sort of arched construction (meaning it is in no way related to the catapult in this article). The central problem is that we have very old greek and roman texts (usually not even original), with very few artifacts or same-era depictions, and then we have a few centuries of post-renaissance reinterpretation, in which new names were added from multiple languages to the names we had from the nearly original texts. But a lot of modern scholars think that much of the reinterpretation was wrong. The bow-powered stone thrower that the article is about was likely just an artifact of those incorrect interpretations (but then again, several scholars think the most popularly depicted catapult, the so-called onager, with a swinging bowl and a stepped-crank spring loading mechanism, usually on wheels, is a mostly incorrect depiction that never existed). So the problem of not having an article on this very common interpretation of a catapult because no "official" name for it can be found is somewhat absurd on the face of it. No "official" name will likely ever be found, because it's very likely the catapult not only never originally existed, but also was never formally described in reinterpretations, and was simply a fanciful notion of an artist like Doré or someone before him. After going through this discussion though, I would certainly be open to renaming this article (perhaps "Bow-powered stone-throwing catapult"). Battling McGook (talk) 18:33, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete not based on reliable historical sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:41, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete no indication it is a notable topic, or even a definitively real topic per Lesgles. A gsearch returns nothing of value. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:04, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * This Vote Is Invalid because there has been no discussion Rename because based on discussions the central issue seems to be with the term being poorly sourced, while no one is disputing the many sources showing catapults of this form. Battling McGook (talk) 17:19, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep -- That people are writing about this machine, on the basis that it did exist, is sufficient grounds for having an article, to say that it did not and that Doré's illustration and other modern reconstructions are in fact the result of a fantasy. Sometimes it is necessary to have an article about a lie, so that people know it is a lie.  Peterkingiron (talk) 18:23, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak delete I personally do like the article; this is interesting stuff. However it cannot be denied that it presents as a big pile of WP:SYNTH. Of the provided sources, those that use the actual name seem to uniformly be based on "this is what we heard people call these things" (the rest deal with ancillary material and not this machine itself). That's not good enough for an encyclopedia article. There's just too much might-have-been/possibly-called/one-could-conclude stuff in here. We don't need to be gunning for a monograph on the subject, but at least a clear and unambiguous mention beyond a mere name drop in a reliable scholarly publication would be expected. I'd like to note that I just found what I believe to be a better treatment than any yet cited on the page: a book review in a History of Science journal - search for "arcuballista", then read the next two pages' worth of text. And that still doesn't provide a solid basis for an article. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:09, 7 June 2020 (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.