Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scaphism


 * 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. Tone 07:42, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Scaphism

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article subject is described in ancient sources but may be mythical. Doesn't qualify for a stand alone article but may be suitable as a short section elsewhere. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:16, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 01:40, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 01:40, 25 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep The nomination doesn't seem to be proposing deletion and the "doesn't qualify" bit is unsupported by evidence or policy. See also WP:ATD, WP:BEFORE, WP:IMPERFECT, WP:PRESERVE, WP:NOTCLEANUP, WP:NOTPAPER, &c.  Andrew D. (talk) 09:54, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep I agree with Andrew D. and this subject is notable independently.فرهنگ2016 (talk) 11:47, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Suggest Merge weak keep I'm pretty sure this nomination is partly as a result of concerns I raised on that articles talk page, and at the RS noticeboard. In short, that there is only one apocryphal source. The article is ultimately based on a paragraph from the story of Mithridates_(soldier), an article also based on the same, single, poor, source. Notably we don't have an article on the work "life of Ataxerxes II" itself. IMO the two existing articles would ideally be merged into one article about the text (life of A II) itself, but at the very least I think the scaphism article should be merged into the Mithridates article. 92.3.155.60 (talk) 12:13, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The article has been improved since I first saw it a few days ago, and I understand the arguments as to keeping it: it has been referenced many times in fiction and sensationalist pseudo-histories. My problem was always more with accuracy rather than notability, and the improved article substantially addresses my concerns. I do still find it strange to have two entirely separate articles deriving from the story of Mithridates, when Life of Ataxerxes II itself isn't worth one...but that's not really the point of this discussion. 92.3.155.60 (talk) 23:23, 25 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. Being mythical doesn't stop it being notable. Nor does tracing back to a single ancient source.  The only thing that counts is that sources discuss it in-depth and the nominator has not claimed this requirement has not been met.  I don't support merge.  The passage about Shakespeare, for instance, could not sensibly be merged into the Mithridates article. SpinningSpark 16:22, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep As User:Spinningspark says this has taken on a life of it's own outside of Mithridates. As long as it's tidied up it's fine. - Snori (talk) 21:52, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep -- While we may doubt the veracity of what Plutarch wrote, there seems no doubt that he did write it. My one doubt is whether the title is accurate.  I have checked a Greek dictionary and the etymology is OK, but I am not sure of the correctness of -ism ending.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:49, 26 September 2018 (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.