Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Res publica

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. John254 20:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Res publica

Res publica (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Wikipedia:No_original_research; to wit: Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked. This article has absolutely no references, no sources, no bibliography. Where does this info come from: Book, Journal? who knows? WHEELER 05:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep I suspect bad faith. Deletion is not what we do when we have unsourced but NPOV and appropriate articles, we improve it, alert editors to the problem, or stick a tag on it like {{unreferenced}}. Morgan Wick 05:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - clean up, don't delete. I too suspect a bad faith faith, given WHEELER's recent history on Republic-related articles. --Haemo 05:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. It has NO sources whatsoever. This is not in bad faith. I remember all the articles I have written that had references, had bibliography, and all the time Deletion notices were always placed on my articles. The slander here against me is obvious. The ariticle has NO sources No references whatsoever. If sources are added that's fine. Keep it. But there are no sources. Look at the hypocrisy of the previous two votes. "bad faith". No, the application of the rules are different. One set of rules for Wheeler and another set "For favorite" Wikipedians. Favorite Wikipedians can do whatever they want to. User:Wheeler, gets slandered, called names, people gaming the system on Wheeler but that is alright. Why don't Wikipedians start upholding the Policy here. No Original research. If sources and references are added. Fine.WHEELER 05:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. My reason for posting this is that there is an OLD definition of republic. Yet this whole article is a slant and bias for British republicanism POV. A.H.J. Greenidge, M.A., in A Handbook of Greek Constitutional History (1911, 2001), writes that Sparta and Britain had the same form of government: "History has shown that such forms of government (speaking about mixed government) are suited to a commonsense non-idealistic people: the Phoenicians of Carthage, the Dorians of Greece, Romans, and Englishmen have all developed this type of polity" (pg 76); "Besides acknowledged difficulty of the creation of such a system,...so amply illustrated by the history of Sparta, Rome, and England" (ibid). Now A.H.J. Greenidge IS a British Scholar. He wrote a book on Greek constitutional history and knows his P's and Q's. Listen to what he says, "...the Dorians of Greece, Rome, and England ALL had the same form of government. So what did Rome have? a res publica. Prof. Greenidge says that Doric Greeks and Englishmen had the same form of government. What really is respublica?...because that article surely doesn't match what A.H.J. Greenidge, Paul A. Rahe, Terrence Ball and Richard Dagger, Sir Thomas Smyth, the Founding Fathers of America had in mind. So this leads me to question the veracity of this article and its sources. WHEELER 00:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Further INFO. Please see the talk page of Res publica; Talk:Res publica#The Roman Constitution and see if something don't jive. Read the REAL Roman constitution and tell me that what is written on wikipedia about these matters is not slanted toward a certain POV. There is some major suffering of the lack of reading comprehension.WHEELER 01:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
      • POV problems are not a reason to delete, but to improve. Morgan Wick 07:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I find it very interesting, that when Banausos came up for deletion and a deletion notice was posted on it; noone made any comment on it like the comments posted here. Here is the page of Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Vanavsos. The article Banausos had references, and a bibliography. It was still put up for deletion. Just like Classical definition of republic. It had sources, bibliography so on and so forth. Yet no one ever commented on the page like the comments read here. There were NO Charges of "bad faith" against the poster of the deletion notice. There was none of this "this nomination does not show good judgment.". When I am on the recieving end, no support. When I give an article a just position on deletion, I am attacked, slandered. It all depends who the Editor is; is the favored one or is he the pariah of WP? This is nothing but hypocrisy of the highest order.WHEELER 06:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
    • You're... you're citing a two-year-old VfD debate, that (if it weren't for its age) would bolster my bad-faith suspicions, to show why we're stepping outside the lines? First of all, you do know that consensus can change, right? Second of all, if you want to know what distinguishes certain cases, the deletion policy is more important than even the most vital policies; also read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Before nominating an AfD. And third, the difference is that this article has a very large section of the scholarly consensus backing it (and does cite sources, sort of, but mostly by quoting them and saying "here is what this text says" without citing where the text, or the translation of it, came from). It looks like, looking at the VfD you cite, the article you defended in that discussion didn't really meet those standards. Oh, and learn the difference between just-any-sources and reliable sources. Morgan Wick 09:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Article has been around since 2004 with multiple editors, yet WHEELER tried to PROD it! Back when this was created most articles had few if any references. So add them. Setting the question of good faith aside, this nomination does not show good judgment. --KSmrq^T 05:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and reference Appears to be a disruption to make a point. Tag as unreferenced. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 06:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep As luck would have it I specifically looked for the term today. Per above, looks like bad faith. Pedro |  Chat  09:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep, and improve. - Mike Rosoft 11:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. No opinion as to the motives of the nominator, but this one is pretty obviously a keeper. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete without prejudice against someone writing an encyclopedic article on the topic in the future, since it is a dictionary definition and a repository of lengthy extracts from public domain sites. One alternative solution might be to stub it down, or to replace it with something from the 1911 Britannica. The nomination may arise from someone seeking to make a point , but in fact it is a remarkably unencyclopedic piece of crappy writing, full of lines like "Already in Ancient Rome Res publica was a mixed-bag concept." It is a dictionary definition, better suited to Wiktionary than to an encyclopedia. It is bloated with lengthy extracts totalling 1310 words consisting of public domain classical writings and English translations, rather than having encyclopedic referencing of said works. Wikipedia is not a repository for lengthy extracts from public domain files, per WP:NOT. Note to closing administrator: The "Keep" !votes are all either attacks on the nominator, or give no reason for keeping it, or say "I find it useful," or note that several people have edited it, or that it has been around a long time. None of those are valid "keep" arguments for AFDs. Edison 16:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The simple fact is that it is notable as a Latin phrase, and Wikipedia is likely to be searched for it's meaning and background is, however, a valued reason for keeping it. The fact that the article is awful, the fact that there are 1310 words in it (and how that justifies a deletion is beyond me), the fact that there are lengthy PD extracts et.al. still doesn't overcome the fact that this is an encyclopedia and the phrase's usage and history goes beyond what would be encompassed in a dicti/wikitionary article. Pedro |  Chat  20:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - the article cites its sources in the authors Cicero, Pliny the Elder, Tacitus, and Augustine of Hippo, and in the translations provided. The article could use some cleanup or additional sourcing, but the subject is encyclopedic and part of classical writing. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 17:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment An encyclopedia article on this topic shoud cite reliable secondary sources to show what scholars say about this concept. The present article pretty much cuts and pastes lengthy extracts from the ancient texts, which is something entirely different. If the topic is notable, then cite scholars about it. Edison 17:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment It is good that now, I can see a source from which this info comes from. I, originally felt that this article is about supporting a POV peculiar to British Republicanism. No, scholar is quoted. It is being free-handed. No text from the book in the Bibliography is quoted. User:Francis Schonken wrote the majority of the piece. Did he compose any of it from that source in the Bibliography? This is my whole point. User:SimonP included the reference book. Now, can anything in that article be connected to anything said in the article? User:SimonP should then work on the article to reference what is said there. I would like to learn what scholar said what.WHEELER

• Comment Agree with Edison that relying on direct quotes of Cicero etc. (or translations thereof) is plain old original research, though the fact that references postdate the main text is not sufficient reason to consider the text unreferenced, else we wouldn't have such templates as {{citation needed}}. Closer incorporation wouldn't do harm, but as SimonP's got a book there, we needn't rush into deletion because that incorporation isn't there *yet*. --Nema Fakei 02:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Notable concept, needs explaining. Article could be improved, both in style, content, and in removing OR rubbish, and I've started on that, including getting rid of the huge quote section.--Nema Fakei 02:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 18:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This is a good faith nomination, according to the nominator's PoV; unfortunately, his PoV is dimly lit by a book by a Carolina eccentric, who wants to join John C. Calhoun is viewing the American Constitution as a mistake, and spin myths about the classical city-state. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the support that is was a "good faith submission".WHEELER 00:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and add more references. This is not without references, since Lewis and Short's Latin Dictionary is mentioned, but certainly more could be said. I seem to recall user:WHEELER suggesting that the ancient Romans did not actually use this term, but even if that's true, the term is widely used now to refer to the ancient Roman state before the time of Julius Caesar. Michael Hardy 18:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. This is obviously a valid article, but it's horribly unsourced. Note that Cicero and other ancient Roman sources are primary sources, and articles that rely solely on primary sources are most likely original research. But since there's lots of modern scholarship available on this topic, the article can be improved to the point where it's not OR. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:05, 29 June 2007 (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.