Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abia (mythology)

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. (non-admin closure) —Theo polisme 00:44, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abia (mythology)

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

Small, not notable as far as I can tell, as a search yielded, essentially word for word, the same article, so possible Copyright violation. ᶲAstridᶲ • ^{(Let's do this!)} 18:06, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the question is, why hasn't this been deleted yet? TV | talk 18:19, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, any figure from Greek mythology is going to be notable because at minimum there have been countless dictionaries and encyclopedias over the centuries attempting to give comprehensive coverage to the subject (and lo, many include entries on Abia: [1]). Finding copies of this Wikipedia article elsewhere on the web is typical and irrelevant to deletion; you should filter those out by including "-wikipedia" in your search. Particularly for a subject of such antiquity, you should also search Google Books or Google Scholar rather than just relying on a straight web search. Re: the copyvio claim, the first source cited in the article is from 1867, so there is no copyright infringement there, and if you mean the second sentence then rewrite it. At most, this should be merged somewhere if there is an appropriate list of minor figures from Greek myth, but I personally don't find the small size of the article a problem, and we do readers a disservice by forcing them to browse immensely long lists just to find one entry (particularly if they are using a mobile device). postdlf (talk) 18:30, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

However, I don't believe there is 1. enough information to justify a separate page for her and 2. that the article is a copyright infringing "copy and paste" deal from elsewhere on the web, instead of the web having a Copy and paste of Wikipedia. The problem I have with it is ,mainly that the subject isn't important. I personally believe that if you don't have enough information to write a 5-7 sentence paragraph, you don't get a separate article. Love always ᶲAstridᶲ • ^{(Let's do this!)} 23:39, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please clarify what source you believe this to be copied from? If it's the Schmitz book, or anything with the same text as that book, then it has already been explained above that its copyright has expired. 10:20, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Merge and redirect to List of Greek mythological figures#Minor figures. There's not enough to justify a separate article. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:01, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:32, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:32, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 01:03, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 09:28, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Greek myth mentioned in a 2000 year old book. The Steve 06:32, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - figures in ancient Greek mythology are inherently encyclopedic. Merging could be considered. Claritas § 06:04, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep as is standard procedure for such figures. Long established consistency to this extent has the effect of a practical guideline. DGG ( talk ) 21:34, 16 November 2012 (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.