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. Feel free to start an RM discussion to resolve any concerns about the title. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:40, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mauro-Roman Kingdom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Potential hoax.

I've searched on Google, Google Books and Scholar and found nothing pertaining to this subject. There's some mentions of Romans in North Africa, but no mentions of a "Mauro-Roman Kingdom". Greyhound 84 (talk) 19:51, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Greyhound 84 (talk) 19:57, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I haven't had a chance to look into the sources yet, but I doubt that an article that has passed a GA review from a competent user who is knowledgeable in the topic (User:Iazyges) could be a hoax. Curbon7 (talk) 20:11, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the article is properly sourced. M.Bitton (talk) 20:23, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I've looked through several of the sources and none of them mention Mauro-Roman Kingdom. Greyhound 84 (talk) 20:30, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Likely a sampling error, as a number of them are used for context not directly related to the Mauro-Roman Kingdom, or use names not identical to it. See the link below. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:33, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep properly sourced, but niche topic (and a huge variety of names, such as Moorish-Roman Kingdom) is likely to interfere with an easy search result. @Greyhound 84: among other sources, see this for confirmation. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:28, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Curbon7: Appreciate the compliment ;). You can find easy proof from the link above, as well as the other sources. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:31, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  That's only one source and it's quite vague. I looked up "Regnum Maurorum et Romanorum" on Google, Google Books and Scholar and that's the only thing that comes up. There's a couple other books but they seem to be translations of said book or cite that book. Greyhound 84 (talk) 20:35, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Greyhound 84: On its own, it's a reliable source that supports its existence, and disproved a hoax. See also this. Again, there are a number of sources that use different names for a niche subject. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:39, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Greyhound 84: With respect, I suggest withdrawing the nomination. It's an understandable mistake, given how hard the niche sources are to find. But its demonstrably not a hoax, as several reliable sources refer to it and confirm it's existence. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:44, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Iazyges: I think the title is a Wikipedian invention. It cannot be found in RS. Srnec (talk) 00:55, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Srnec: Hmm. Perhaps Moorish-Roman kingdom? That's in the RS. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 01:01, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Concerns have previously been raised about the title (Talk:Mauro-Roman_Kingdom#Title_and_Latin_name) and although there was general agreement that something ought to be changed, there was no consensus on what that change should be. However, whatever issues exist there are not justification for deletion.Furius (talk) 00:05, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but re-title and re-jig. I raised the same issues as Furius on the talk page. It's not a hoax, but it probably shouldn't be a GA until the problems are fixed. Srnec (talk) 00:55, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and retitle such as Moorish-Roman Kingdom as under that name it is covered in reliable sources as identified in this discussion, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:11, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep pretty funny situation to be honest. The kingdom is mentioned in an extremely wide variety of sources including Procopius's history of the war, who refers to it either simply as "Moors" or "Altavans", and Corippus's Iohannus, who referred to it by the same names. The name "Mauro-Roman kingdom" comes from an inscription made by king Masuna which called him the king of the Maurs and Romans. I believe this name is used instead of the alternative "Kingdom of Altava" to differentiate from the later runp state that came after the fall of Garmul, last king ruling over this unified kingdom.

Whatever748 (talk) 00:16, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep probably renamed - There must have been some one ruler this area in the late antique period. I see no reason to regard this as incredible. However the current name needs reconsideration. That is not a reason for deletion. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:44, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keepper above, although also a possible move? Bearian (talk) 04:12, 1 February 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.