Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roman Palestine: Difference between revisions

Roman Palestine (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)

Fork of Syria Palaestina, Judaea (Roman province), etc. which adequately cover the topic(s). ← Metallurgist (talk) 05:11, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Israel, and Palestine. ← Metallurgist (talk) 05:11, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Totally AGAINST. You should have at least opened a discussion on the talk-page first.

  It’s a very useful and very common term in history & archaeology. It covers several sub-periods, as you seem to know – you used etc. to cover that fact – and one cannot do without it. One might argue for a change of the title, to “X in the Roman period”, with a guaranteed protracted war over X – Palestine, Palestine region, Land of Israel, Eretz Yisrael, Holy Land – but none would be more comon or useful than the current one. So no, it’s a nonsensical proposal w/o any merit at all. Arminden (talk) 07:49, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Its an AFD, you can just oppose it. Its not the end of the world. ← Metallurgist (talk) 00:58, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi Metallurgist. I’ve seen ambushes before: deletion proposals w/o merit and out of the blue, main contributor(s) busy or gone, and before you know it, something you appreciate, use, and often have put work into, is gone. I don’t take it that easy. Time is limited, and on Wiki work & time remain unpaid for, which makes some not give them the respect they deserve. There’s a real responsability toward users and fellow editors in what we’re doing here. Arminden (talk) 10:59, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Its not a fork at all. Judea (Roman Province) is just one small part of Roman Palestine, geographically ans temporally smaller and Syria Palaestina too. This is a necessary overview article to connect those two. Tiamut (talk) 08:56, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  My original thought was only Syria Palaestina, but that seemed limited in time, so I included the other one. I could see this being a redirect to SP, as Judea predates the Roman usage of Palestine. ← Metallurgist (talk) 00:59, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Syria palestina as a description of part of the region does go back to Hellenistic times (see Herodotus), and this is information strangely absent from our article on the topic. Nevertheless, there is a need for this overview article on Roman Palestine, as it starts with the Roman occupation and extends into (or by some definitions even encompasses) Byzantine Palestine, depending on how it is defined. Our articles on History of Palestine or Timeline of Palestine indicate the need for an article covering this period. Tiamut (talk) 05:43, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. First, it is an eminently notable topic with a huge number of available reliable sources. Second, an article cannot be a fork of two articles that are about sub-topics. It should be expanded, not deleted. Zero^talk 09:23, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi Zero0000. Exactly (“an article cannot be a fork of two articles that are about sub-topics”), and even worse, quote: “Fork of Syria Palaestina, Judaea (Roman province), etc.”, where “etc.” stands for SEVERAL more articles ( Hasmonean kingdom after 63 BCE (63–37 CE), kingdom of Herod the Great (37-4 BCE), and the Tetrarchy (4 BCE-44 CE, actually including the first Roman governors before Herod Agrippa)). Roman Pal. covers 63 BCE – 4th c. CE (324 or later), wehereas Judaea (Roman province) and Syria Palaestina only cover 6–135 CE plus 136–390 CE. So we have some 5 sub-topics, not just 2. Arminden (talk) 14:24, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  How would it cover all of those periods when they only used the term for Syria Palaestina? If anything, this argues for a dab. ← Metallurgist (talk) 01:01, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per the suggestions above. An editor from Mars (talk) 10:11, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per above. Triggerhippie4 (talk) 17:25, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

keep per richard nevell User:Easternsahara_{review this} 17:23, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Since I’ve enquired with @SFR about whether I’m able to touch this topic, and definitely not gotten a blanket ‘no’ based on title alone, I will simply note that there is no deletion rationale here, with the AfD stemming from confusion over what constitutes a fork. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:11, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]