Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laodice I Princess of Syria
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash 23:06, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
OR; cf Laodice I. Not useful redirect Septentrionalis 17:54, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep tell us more information .... dates would be useful ... as it stands the article is uninformative, can it be expanded? Rhyddfrydol 21:06, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- revise vote to delete there is Wikipedia policy not to include biographical details of fictious persons I believe. Thanks for the extra info Rhyddfrydol 23:26, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- No vote (for now) there is certainly nonsense here, this article claims Laodice was daughter of Laodice I and mother of Laodice of Pontus. Yet, the article on Laodice of Pontus claims that these same women were sisters. Yet, this [1] tends to bear out this current article. Septentrionalis, can you explain what is going on here? I think we need some expertise to settle this one. --Doc (?) 22:32, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The writer invented a new history of Syria, including ruling queens who never ruled, and descents that never existed. The five women dabbed under Laodice appear to be real, and their contents check out with standard classical encyclopedias. This is a figment. Compare the original version of Laodice I Queen of Syria, which I salvaged as a useful redirect Septentrionalis 22:44, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- OK I'm satisfied that Septentrionalis knows something about Hellenistic History - so unless someone provides evidence to refute him/her (and I think that unlikely) safest thing to do is delete. Hope some more folk vote, because if this is bogus, a 'keep no consensus' would be disastrous. --Doc (?) 22:49, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete looks like a hoax based on the other WP articles on the subject Sam Vimes 11:35, 3 September 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.