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. Consensus is that changes to the article since the AFD started have demostrated notability and justification for a standalone article. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:54, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect contested. Meets WP:INVALIDBIO and WP:BIO1E since nothing is known about this person other than the divorce, and the article is almost entirely a description of people other than the subject. Also, a sizeable chunk of this article seems to have been copied without attribution from Publius Antistius, and perhaps other pages.
Redirect: With the reminder that the article's content bears little merit of whether the subject is notable, I'm leaning towards this one not being independently notable. All of the sources describe her in relation to her father and her husband (despite it being my field, I really hate classics in times like this). A redirect to somewhere with expansion at Pompey and Publius Antistius would make the most sense; sources that may be helpful in this regard include [1] and [2]. Curbon7 (talk) 16:04, 6 January 2023 (UTC) [reply]
Keep Per WP:HEY. The article has improved considerably and I think does provide independent notability. Curbon7 (talk) 23:21, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, with options. Redirect (probably to 'Publius Antistius') I don't think we're in WP:INVALIDBIO here - Antistia isn't just notable because she was the wife of Pompey, but because she is an important part of the events around Pompey's trial, first marriage and divorce, all of which are important parts of the historical record. Granted, she would not have entered the historical record but for her proximity to another person, but that is true of a large number of unquestionably notable people: Anne of Cleves, Olympias or Calpurnia (wife of Caesar) spring to mind quickly. Indeed, it's a sad truth that most of the women we know from Classical antiquity are at least primarily identified in the sources as relations - mothers, wives or daughters - of men.
Part of the section on the Antistia gens is summarised (sometimes a little too closely, which is almost certainly my doing and fault) and expanded from material available in the article on Publius Antistius: I agree that should certainly be/have been marked in the edit summary, but I think we're within the territory of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout#Section templates and summary style inasfar as When a section is a summary of another article that provides a full exposition of the section, a link to that article should appear immediately under the section heading, which it (partially) is, and does.
I've been thinking on this one since you raised the issue yesterday: Pompey already has a banner saying that the article is too long, so I don't think merging this article into there would make much sense. The standard for WP:BIO is significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. Antistia definitely has coverage (and those sources raise material about her which certainly has a place somewhere on Wikipedia); the question-mark, I think, is whether that coverage counts as significant (edit: it certainly is in the two sources linked by User:Curbon7 above.), and so whether it belongs in a stand-alone article, particularly as she is often bundled with Aemilia (Pompey's second wife, for whom he divorced her) and sometimes (as in the Haley article cited in the text) with his other wives.
I think a page on Wives of Pompey the Great (in the vein of Wives of Henry VIII), into which this article might be merged, would be a good way to solve both problems - as a collective, they easily pass WP:BIO, and their coverage in the Pompey article could therefore be slimmed down.
In the short term, if the consensus here is to delete, I'd recommend a merge into Publius Antistius. Antistia gens is a general run-through of many members of that gens - it doesn't cover any individual in detail, so merging there would either unbalance Antistia gens or require the deletion of a large amount of useful content from the current Antistia (wife of Pompey) article. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 16:34, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
[reply]
Thinking further on this, I think I've talked myself round: the marriage and divorce of Pompey and Antistia are the key notable events in question here, and Antistia (wife of Pompey) should redirect to whatever page most fully discusses them. I've created Draft:Marriages of Pompey the Great, in the hope that eventually we can summarise the wives with independent articles and cobble together what's known about those who don't, and then have that page as a WP:SPLIT from Pompey, and probably change the redirect for Antistia (wife of Pompey) to point there once it's ready. Vote changed to match. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:46, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In light of the discussion below (and experience in writing the draft on 'Marriages of Pompey the Great', I'm no longer sure I want to fully stand by any of the above. Struck through.UndercoverClassicist (talk) 08:41, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Much of the so-called useful content seems to have been copied without attribution from what I myself wrote at Publius Antistius, which is the exact opposite of how a merge should work and is a reason to not retain the content. The comparison with Anne of Cleves and Olympias is incorrect, since they both have received significant coverage of their own deeds independent of their relationship with other persons. The available coverage of Antistia, however, is simply that she married Pompey and was divorced (INVALIDBIO). The political background and implications of it are significant coverage of Pompey, Sulla, and her father, not of herself. Avilich (talk) 16:50, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Pompey needs to be cleaned up anyway so there's no reason why this couldn't have been written there. Avilich (talk) 16:51, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. I don't have strong opinions about the most suitable target, but despite what UndercoverClassicist suggests I do not think that either of the sources Curbon links to "certainly" count as significant coverage: Lightman's encyclopedia entry on Antistia barely manages to eke out eight sentences by making half of them solely about her father, and tells us only three facts about her: she married Pompey, Pompey divorced her, she committed suicide. The Haley article mentions the same bare facts, except that it doesn't mention her supposed suicide. Is that "significant coverage"? I'm not sure it is. Even if it is, I'm not sure it's useful to have an article on Antistia when exactly the same facts can be covered in two sentences in either or both of Antistius' or Pompey's articles. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:18, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm starting to lean in a similar direction: that when you come to the Pompey article, there should be a brief summary of his five marriages, one of which takes you somewhere when you click the name 'Antistia' to go into the details of the marriage, its background and the divorce - at the moment, that's this article, but I can see a strong case for making it a section of Publius Antistius, which can then be expanded with the material from this article that isn't already in it. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 19:34, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back into Pompeius, or that and any other relevant articles. I'm not voting to delete because there is a good chance that some of the contents aren't duplicated at the relevant articles, even if much of the text was split off from one of them without attribution (and the lack of attribution is an issue separate from deletion, IMO). If the editor who created and has been the main curator of this page is willing to make certain that the topic is adequately covered under the two or three other articles that this relates to, then change this title into a redirect to the most suitable of those, that should be fine. The difference between delete and merge is that with delete, we simply wipe this article and all traces of it from the encyclopedia, without first making an effort to ensure that the topic is adequately covered in other articles, and without leaving a redirect for anyone who might be searching for more information about the subject. It could be that all of the useful content already exists in said articles, but with delete we don't even bother making sure—it's a shot in the dark on the assumption that there's nothing useful here—so the correct procedure is merge, even if nothing winds up being copied over after a review. P Aculeius (talk) 14:11, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- This is not really about the lady herself, about whom we probably know next to nothing but her name and parentage. It is much more about Pompey and his marriages and associated politics. Accordingly it belongs in the marriages section of the article on Pompey. This could usefully be expanded a little, despite this repeating what appeared earlier in the article. That section ought to appears before later portrayals and cultural depictions. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:23, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting to come to an agreed upon Redirect/Merge target by those who know something about this subject. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 22:45, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as most contents aren't directly about subject but instead other people. Belichickoverbrady (talk) 01:47, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Lightman & Lightman; Haley; and Hughes all discuss Antistia with a focus on her and in the case of Haley what this marriage says about women's experience. This is not simply about the gens Antistia nor just about Pompey (the copying is no ground for deletion and is easily repaired by WP:RIA). Furius (talk) 19:34, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pompey: both Publius Antistius and Pompey could be expanded with content from this article, but she is notable (in the common meaning of the word, not the Wikipedia meaning) as the wife of Pompey. Therefore, that is the better redirect target. TL;DR merge with both but redirect to Pompey. HouseBlastertalk 22:36, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Furius argument.★Trekker (talk) 12:57, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep also per Furius. There is no PROMO here (obviously); and a strong case of WP:PRESERVE. 31.187.2.233 (talk) 17:10, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? Why are you citing promo on someone who died 2100 years ago? Curbon7 (talk) 20:18, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: The encyclopedic nature of this content has been convincingly demonstrated, but the need for a standalone page has not been explicitly discussed enough; more discussion of this point would be helpful. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 22:12, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as stand-alone because the politics surrounding this marriage is encyclopedic; I would argue further argue that we could probably do with a Wives of Pompey article, similar to Wives of Henry VIII or List of Brigham Young's wives. jengod (talk) 00:28, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It is an informative and interesting article and has good sources Paradise Chronicle (talk) 01:52, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A page Marriages of Pompey the Great has been created, which is superior to all other proposed redirect targets and contains the exact same copied text, so the debate seems settled and the article should be redirected there (I should also note that the above comment on the sources is flatly false since none of the sources Lightman, Haley and Hughes discuss the present subject in depth -- but they do discuss the subject of the newly-created page, so a redirect to that solves that issue). Avilich (talk) 03:18, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the draft was written, by me, with the working assumption that this page would eventually be deleted - I do not consider it suitable for publication as-is and am surprised that you would unilaterally move it without making significant improvements or consulting the only editor who had previously worked on it. I find it difficult to see this as a move in good faith. Whether another article exists which could or should contain the same information is not relevant to whether the subject of this article passes notability. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 08:37, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Furius. Unilateral publishing of the draft above to force their deletion argument to win is not confidence inspiring, to say the least. IazygesConsermonorOpus meum 03:52, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is a bad faith, retaliatory vote from someone who disagrees with the publishing of the draft. The draft is in good condition and is the ideal place to place the content which the keep voters want to keep, thus a compromise. Avilich (talk) 04:01, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Avilich: It's not bad faith or retaliatory because I have no vested interest in the matter of the page move, here I merely agree with Furius that it should be kept, as do a great many others. Separately, I think it's patently obvious why you disruptively and unilaterally moved the thing from draftspace; it being in line with draft policies does not dissuade from that. IazygesConsermonorOpus meum 04:04, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like an appropriate way of dealing with the basic concerns about the subject. While Antistia doesn't really seem to emerge as a distinct individual in any of these articles, she nonetheless is a central figure in a subtopic of the life of Pompeius, and as several participants in the discussion have suggested, an article of this type provides adequate space for covering the subject. If everything usable from this article is there, then I think it would be fine to redirect this title there, thus preserving the page history—along with this discussion—should anybody go looking for it, or wonder why it was changed from a stand-alone article into a redirect. As for the process by which the new article was created, clearly it rubbed some of the participants the wrong way; but I suspect we can all benefit from the reminder that even experienced editors have feelings, and want to feel that their opinions are respected despite disagreement. I know that I always feel like I'm learning from these dust-ups, even when I'm only on the periphery of the argument. P Aculeius (talk) 05:25, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Marriages of Pompey the Great seems to me to be the current best redirect/merge target. With the greatest respect for those arguing to keep this article as a standalone, several of whom I have worked with in the past, I remain unconvinced that the sources cited provide sufficient in depth coverage to justify the standalone article. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:22, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That article is better than nothing, but the second sentence comes close to a statement that such an article shouldn't be the only way that such information is presented and I note that the section on Antistia ends up substantially longer than any of the others. So, it doesn't change my opinion that the Antistia article should be kept. Furius (talk) 17:36, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is partly a result of the half-finished nature of the article, but that is my perspective as well: given the nature of the sources, the composite article ends up with this strange, top-heavy structure which, it could be argued, gives the impression that Antistia is disproportionately important versus the other wives, particularly those who already have their own main articles. The 'obvious' solution to me would be to slim down the 'Antistia' section to a summary, with the bulk of the information in the stand-alone article. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 19:54, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, I do not agree with Aviliich and I suggest they argument much more transparent in future deletion discussions if they were to take part in them again. Its an informative article and the other article was released into mainspace without the consent by the draft creator nor have they been consulted. I find this a troubling precedent as in the case a release of a draft into article mainspace happens without the consent of the draft creator they might lose their possibility for a DYK they feel comfortable with etc. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 02:24, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think there is enough detail here to justify a stand-alone article. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 14:22, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there are enough sources. T8612(talk) 09:21, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (I have stricken through previous votes) - the new material on Antistia's post-Classical reception, sourced to secondary sources, swings the balance for me. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 12:56, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Likewise, I'm also convinced by the content in Antistia (wife of Pompey)#Cultural depictions that a separate article is warranted for this topic. Thank you to the many editors that have put in substantial work in this discussion and related pages to improve Wikipedia's coverage in this area and reach consensus about the best way to organize it. Jfire (talk) 16:19, 27 January 2023 (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.