Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conquests of Hannibal

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 Hannibal . SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 01:10, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Conquests of Hannibal[edit]

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

I don't see the purpose of this misleadingly titled and redundant article. What's here that's not in Hannibal? I pledge eternal hatred for this article. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:57, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE. Nearly all of this is, in fact, a word-for-word copy of parts of Hannibal. Only fails A10 speedy deletion by its long history. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:31, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:21, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:21, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:22, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:23, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:23, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:23, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This discussion seems to have gone missing in the day-by-day listings. I believe I have corrected the issue. --j⚛e decker ^talk 01:24, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 15:16, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hannibal, his conquests should be mentioned in his article. If anyone was bold enough, they'd put a G12 on the article. I'm not sure, but is copying straight from another wiki article allowed? Doesn't seem right to me. Aerospeed (Talk) 22:16, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. After some serious excavation, it looks like the first edit of Conquests of Hannibal was a copy/paste job from the Hannibal article of 2007. There does not appear to be any attempt to split, so I'd treat it as a duplication or redundant content fork. As for whether the title makes for a good redirect, "conquests of Hannibal" refers to his whole life. I don't think it's a particularly helpful search term and if used in a phrase, linking just his name would be most appropriate. @Aerospeed, as for whether it's okay to copy straight, all WP contributions are licensed under cc-by-sa such that it's fine to reuse them in whatever as long as the author(s)—or at least source—are attributed (not done in @Arcyqwerty's 2007 edit) and that future revisions are published under the same license. So in WP's case, it's fine to merge information or split out summary style when a section gets too big, but the author/page should be attributed, and the old section should be reduced accordingly. In this case, the page is just fully redundant to Hannibal's bio. @Rcsprinter123, heads up that you accidentally relisted the page twice czar ⨹ 23:28, 1 December 2014 (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.