Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iturea and Trachonitis (tetrarchy)

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 Herodian Tetrarchy. There does not appear to be a clear consensus regarding keeping or deleting this article, but as most content is copied from Herodian Tetrarchy and that article is not too large itself, a redirect seems to be the best solution. Randykitty (talk) 14:27, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Iturea and Trachonitis (tetrarchy)[edit]

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

This article is a Fork/ Duplication of another article:
What is not duplicated is Original Research:
The subject, per title, lacks Notability. Moonraker12 (talk) 12:13, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Additional): This article has a whole list of problems.
First, it is almost entirely copied from the Herodian Tetrarchy article: Only the title, lead sentence and some of the stuff in the infobox are original.
Second, what is original here really is Original; it is based on a misreading of the term “Tetrarchy”. We (and the concise OED) define "tetrarchy" as a system of government involving four rulers; the article puts forward the view that “tetrarchy” is the name for the territory ruled by a tetrarch (in this case, Herod's son, Philip) and, although the sources are unclear which territories Philip actually ruled, presumes to tell us categorically.
Third, if this polity did in fact carry this name, it lacks notability as a subject. We already have articles on the Herodian Tetrarchy as a whole, and on all the individual rulers, and on all the territories they governed; there is nothing to be gained from an article on one particular arrangement of territories, which cannot say anything that cannot be, and probably hasn't already been, said in the articles we already possess. Moonraker12 (talk) 12:34, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Srnec (talk) 12:43, 15 October 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, Natg 19 (talk) 04:59, 21 October 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:30, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as polities of any historical era are inherently notable provided their existence can be confirmed, per WP:NPLACE. However, it is problematic that the article is mostly copied from another one. Perhaps it should be reduced to stub-size for now, and/or tagged for cleanup. --Sammy1339 (talk) 16:16, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that is the problem, isn't it? We only have St Luke's word for it that Philip ruled only these two territories, and we only have the original editors word for it that this is what his kingdom was called.

And if we strip out all that was copied, we are left with the stub “The Tetrarchy of Iturea and Trichonitis, also known as the Tetrarchy of Batanea was one of the Herodian Tetrarchies between 4 BCE to 34 CE. It...“, and all of those statements are questionable. Moonraker12 (talk) 11:26, 4 November 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.