Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roman usurper (2nd nomination)


 * 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 no consensus. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:58, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Roman usurper
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

18 years after the article was created and 8 years after the last AfD discussion (see: Articles for deletion/Roman usurper), not one citation has ever been added to the article, and the whole concept is in any case an ancient POV fork with Roman emperor, which could use a section on the short-lived incumbents who get called usurpers, to go with our List of Roman usurpers. GPinkerton (talk) 00:10, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * SUpport per nom. Alternatively merge with List of Roman usurpers; what may in theory be salvaged could be dumped there. Avis11 (talk) 00:55, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect (changed my opinion slightly) to List of Roman usurpers, so as not to lose the page history. "Roman usurper" in itself is also a plausible search term. Avis11 (talk) 21:14, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. There might be mergeable sentences to put in other articles, but only if sources are found. This is a personal essay. Mccapra (talk) 06:03, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:19, 24 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. As was noted in the previous deletion discussion, the topic is notable, and any extended discussion is beyond the scope of the list article—although a list would not be beyond the scope of this one.  The length of time that the article has needed significant work is not really the point: there is no time limit to improve articles, and we don't delete articles on notable topics merely because nobody has taken the time and effort to improve them significantly.  I agree that it's written much like an essay, but that's a reason to improve the article, not to delete it.  As long as the article is there, there is impetus for editors with knowledge of the topic to work on it.  If we delete it, we merely hide the evidence that there was a neglected topic in the first place.  P Aculeius (talk) 13:29, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 12:05, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Probably delete -- there may possibly be something worth merging into List of Roman usurpers. I have to say that I am not sure that list is wholly complete: my memory of the later history of Roman Britain suggests that there were a number of usurping emperors, who ruled Britain and perhaps a bit more without any wider authority.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:16, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - as per P Aculeius. Iv'e added one piece of litterature to the article. In the related German article, there can be found three more examples of litterature on this topic, though all in German. I will for now leave it to others to judge, whether these German titles are relevant to add to the article. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 15:33, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of Roman usurpers I don't see a compelling reason to have two articles on this topic. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  09:45, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   11:34, 1 November 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep. Agreed that the information is notable. This article has little relation to the list being proposed for redirect—that article does not actually discuss the phenomenon of this article. Agreed it hasn't been fixed in a decade, but as said, there is no time limit to fix articles. Zkidwiki (talk) 21:18, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pamzeis (talk) 11:42, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep If the nominator wants citations then they should add some per WP:SOFIXIT It's not like sources don't exist: see From Usurper to Emperor, for example.  See also WP:BEFORE; WP:IGNORINGATD; WP:NOTCLEANUP. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:31, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of Roman usurpers: this is an unsourced fork from Roman emperor. There is no sourced material to merge and we should not merge unsourced material into articles.  // Timothy ::  talk  13:43, 10 November 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.