Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Octavian's march on Rome

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 War of Mutina. Star Mississippi 01:32, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Octavian's march on Rome[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The entire article is a WP:CFORK which wholly overlaps with the War of Mutina. This march is described by no reliable sources as a civil war. The extent of the reliable sources (ie not uncritically copying Appian) is also very sparse on the specifics of Octavian marching on the city: there is no basis for an independent article. ~~All the text~~ The vast majority of the text in the article at present is also WP:COPYVIO as it simply copies without attribution my work on War of Mutina; what isn't my text is entirely unreferenced. Ifly6 (talk) 17:18, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Italy. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:21, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: the topics are sufficiently different (the march is part of the war, not the same thing), so by WP:RELAR, having both pages is acceptable. The point about civil war (whilst valid, and you should make this change) is irrelevant. Godtres (talk) 10:40, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you cite any sources showing that the march has received enough coverage to justify a separate article? Avilich (talk) 23:14, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This clearly is a WP:POVFORK (or charitably, a WP:REDUNDANTFORK). The recently created page content is heavily copied from War of Mutina. Although there is some re-arrangement of the material, it constitutes WP:COPYWITHIN, unaltered copied text being all the way through this. Yet there is no attribution, so this actually constitutes a copy-vio. The copying is not in compliance with the Wikipedia CC attribution licence. Although this could be repaired, the question is why we need this article when it is all covered in its source article. The answer is it is not. There is nothing here that is not there, and I am unconvinced by the argument that this is merely a related subject. The page is currently covering the same subject. Thus a POVFORK/REDUNDANTFORK. I also notice the references have all been copied as in text SFN citations only, and the bibliography has not been copied across. As such, this is technically unreferenced (and I am not reassured that the page creator has verified any of these references, as they have not apparently noticed this issue). Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:49, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Aside from the blatant violation of WP:CFORK and WP:COPYWITHIN and the other points raised above, there is only one paragraph actually describing the march. There is no reason why the march should be described separately from the conflict in which it took place. Avilich (talk) 23:03, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree that it is a clear violation of WP:CFORK, which I was not aware of when I created the article. Romulus Cyrus (talk) 08:18, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to War of Mutina as an alternative to deletion 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 14:54, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an unattributed CFORK. No objection to a redirect after the page has been deleted. Sam Sailor 12:30, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to War of Mutina as an alternative to deletion. Given the creator's stance, this is uncontroversial. Title seems not unreasonable as a redirect. Srnec (talk) 20:54, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To confirm, I am content with redirect too. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:06, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.