Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caesar's planned invasion of the Parthian Empire

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. Substantial work was done to this article during the AfD, and every comment after that work began has been to keep, so I'm down-weighting the early delete !votes. If anybody still feels this should be deleted, no prejudice against bringing it back for another look. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:02, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Caesar's planned invasion of the Parthian Empire

[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)

As the title says, a planned invasion (i.e. it didn't take place). The Julius Caesar article already mentions these plans, so I don't think any segment of the article's only sentence is worthy of being merged into another article. - LouisAragon (talk) 16:04, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (Author). There are similar articles in Wikipedia. Like this one: Napoleon's planned invasion of the United Kingdom. More information can be added to the article. Like number of his army and legions, which was greatest army Rome yet seen. Amir El Mander (talk) 16:17, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Amir El Mander: Are you willing to further expand this article? - LouisAragon (talk) 16:54, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@LouisAragon: Maybe. Also others can help in expanding it. Amir El Mander (talk) 17:17, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Amir I could perhaps later help with the expanding if you can write down some good sources that aren't too hard to access. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:11, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@HistoryofIran: Plutarch's CaesarAmir El Mander (talk) 17:17, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Eh Parthia is simply mentioned 3 times in that source, without going into any detail. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:05, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are plenty of sources alright, but most of the ones I've seen are mostly composed of what-ifs and don't have much detail on Caesar's plans. GN-z11 ^☎ ^★ 17:26, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft for now. I suspect this could become a decent article, on par with the Napoleon one, with info on the background, aims of the invasion and why it didn't go ahead. But for now, it's just a one-liner that doesn't add anything more than what's in the main article. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:29, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:30, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:30, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect name to Julius Caesar article that already mentions it. This is barely a two-line stub and there is no need for it; it adds nothing. Kierzek (talk) 14:05, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy . As presently construed this is a poor fork, with less content on the subject matter, than Antony's Parthian War#Background, Roman–Parthian Wars#Roman Republic vs Parthia. I'm not sure an article on Caesar's plans can be developed (as I'm unsure there are in-depth sources on his plans beyond him having such plans) - however we would expect a spinout on such a plan to be more detailed than the parent article(s) on the subject - which in this case the present article is not. Icewhiz (talk) 14:22, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:23, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:23, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or userfy if the creator wants it. Srnec (talk) 18:45, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- There can be nothing further to say on the subject than we have here. It might also be mentioned in the Roman-Parthian Wars article, but I see no prospect of this ever becoming more than a stub. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:15, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. While the invasion did not happen, nobody seems to deny the plans were made; if the invasion had happened, it would have been on a material scale. Thus the topic is notable and acceptable for a WP article (check). The article is a stub but is referenced with a basic stub structure (check). Therefore, while I would love to see more content (and ultimately a full article), I how can I object to existence of a properly referenced stub on a notable topic? Many great WP articles started in this way. Britishfinance (talk) 21:39, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Updating to Strong Keep post update of article.

Keep. I am unaware of the Wikipedia policy for deleting pages on notable topics, becasue they are stubs. I do not want a page for every concept, noun or failed plan; but I think all of us here would one day love to read this article. I will help how I can.(Dushan Jugum (talk) 09:11, 12 February 2019 (UTC)).[reply]

Comment. Some great work by Dushan Jugum in developing this article. Britishfinance (talk) 20:49, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The relevant question in AFD is not whether the article has been developed, but whether it can be developed. And it sounds like there's enough information out there to write a decent article that wouldn't need to be merged into another. If memory serves, Caesar had already nominated a magister equitum for the campaign when he was assassinated, which suggests a fairly advanced stage of planning. P Aculeius (talk) 14:36, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:GNG, now has (just?) enough references to reflect this (and it could be argued enough to bring it out of the unreferenced/too few references quagmire that is stubbels into the wonderful article start journey but i won't:)). Coolabahapple (talk) 23:56, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I added two more refs, some text and de-stubbed. It still needs work and lots of it, but I feel many of the legitimate complaints about the page have been addressed. Sorry for editing the projects on the talk page, but I have been told it is best practise in such cases. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 02:09, 13 February 2019 (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.