Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LacusCurtius

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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. Missvain (talk) 18:20, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LacusCurtius

[edit]

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

LacusCurtius (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No significant coverage per WP:WEB. SL93 (talk) 17:59, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 18:02, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:07, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I don't think it really matters whether the site's owner created the article, as it's received significant attention from unaffiliated editors since that time. The issue is whether it's notable. I glanced around for signs of notability without finding anything I thought I could use, but I'm far from an expert in the field of determining notability and my search wasn't exhaustive. I do have considerable reservations about concluding a lack of notability, however. This site is one of the premier sources for classical texts—probably used more than any other by Wikipedians working on Roman topics, and perhaps a good percentage of Greek topics as well. It's reasonably well-designed and clearly a good deal of scholarly work went into putting it together, and in organizing and annotating many of the texts.
That makes it pretty important for modern classical scholarship; not all classical scholars can afford a large library or access to the texts concerned, so sites like this and Perseus, along with on-line epigraphic sources are invaluable. That's not something that lends itself to news coverage, however, and scholars who use the site for convenience may only be citing to the texts it contains rather than the site, since the original source carries scholarly weight that the site does not. So my opinion as someone who's used it quite often over the years is that the article ought to be considered notable, although I don't feel able to prove that at this time. I'll bring this discussion to the attention of my colleagues at CGR: maybe some of them can help establish notability. P Aculeius (talk) 11:11, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It certainly is a key resource (when it's not down) like Perseus Project, but it hasn't been publicised in the same way (probably because it's a private project). I don't know where you'd find the sort of sources that wiki needs. Furius (talk) 12:21, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:57, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No vote either way: I did indeed write the seed of this article, when I was new to Wickedpedia (and WP, a site slightly younger than mine, was new itself), being impelled, almost told, to do so by a WP contributor who had been around for a while. I have no idea whether the site is noteworthy and don't much care one way or the other, but have occasionally edited the page from an IP in this range 24.136.4.218 (variable depending on my server, apparently), usually not bothering to log in, just to keep info current as long as the page was up. WP itself links about 7000 times to it, but then Wickedpedia hardly makes anything noteworthy or otherwise… 24.136.11.43 (talk) 14:11, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a further parenthesis, it happens that Lacus has been down for about a week currently, the longest outage ever; COVID-related problems made it hard to find out what was going on, but finally this morning I thought I learned that the University of Chicago is pulling the plug on it (and apparently on Perseus at PhiloLogic as well). I have a couple of offers to host the site, and it looked like I would have to be moving it soon. If it moves I'll put in a notice to WP's robots to change the root address to whatever the new one is, of course. 24.136.11.43 (talk) 14:18, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The UoC is not in fact pulling the plug on LacusCurtius: the outage was due to an electrical glitch in a COVID-unoccupied building on campus, and the length of the outage was due to a one-week delay by some peon in replying to an urgent request for permission to enter the building to ascertain and fix the problem. The e‑mail was finally answered, permission granted, and this morning it took all of ten minutes to restore the server. ▸ LacusCurtius therefore continues to be online as before, notices of its demise (incl. by me!) were premature. I've edited my previous note. 24.136.11.43 (talk) 18:42, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment somebody needs to now actually incorporate the new sources into the article if they want to save it. I don't know much about the site and feel unqualified, but the websites provided above seem adequate. use template:cite web SpartaN (talk) 21:56, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 15:27, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Would normally have recommended Draftify because it meets the criteria and just needs a lot of work, but the author of the article (and apparently according to others above, the author of the website) hasn't been active on Wikipedia since 2010, and others don't see to be keen to work on the article so it's unlikely that a draftify would be worth it. Dr. Universe (talk) 18:22, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There's nothing controversial or contentious in the page and there's no reason to believe anything on the page is untrue, so I don't think there being original reasearch is reason to destroy the entire page in the hope someone recreates it some day. If it meets the critera and there's no pressing reason for it to be deleted my view is that it should just be left alone. Uses x (talk • contribs) 03:59, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:24, 27 May 2021 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/LacusCurtius&oldid=1026873330"