Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mussolini's Mare Nostrum

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 merge to Mare Nostrum. There is insufficient evidence to show that NRex4 is a sockpuppet of a banned user; otherwise, the content is fine. What gets merged into what, how to merge, etc. can be sorted out on the talk page. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:29, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result has been changed to delete per clarification from the blocking admin on the identity of the sockpuppeteer. Brunodam was banned in July 2008 and the article was created in October 2010 without any substantial subsequent edits, so G5 does apply now. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:48, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mussolini's Mare Nostrum

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

This article, which was posted by an editor who is currently banned indefinitely, is a recreation of a previous article which was also removed.
The (interminable) discussion is here.
The main issue is that it is a POV fork from Battle of the Mediterranean and seeks to push a fascist agenda. Xyl 54 (talk) 01:31, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, obviously, per nominator. But if this article was posted by a banned user, can't it be speedy deleted anyway, per policy? (Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion: G5. Creations by banned or blocked users)? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:59, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it should be speedy deleted per policy. Speedy close and delete please. CycloneGU (talk) 03:05, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ADMIN COMMENT - As far as I can tell, the editor is not banned per WP:BAN, G5 can only be used when an article has been created in violation of a ban or block, so that has to be shown before it can be speedily deleted. The article was created on 8 October 2010, whilst NRex4 was not blocked until 26 March 2011. Therefore G5 cannot apply. Mjroots (talk) 05:13, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough; I’d assumed Nrex4 was a sock of User:Brunodam, who wrote the original article, but on looking,the connection isn't asserted anywhere. Xyl 54 (talk) 01:56, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - That's one hell of an "interminable discussion" linked above. I'm less sold that this is a POV push than I am it is a content fork. Still pondering. Carrite (talk) 18:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I should elaborate.

The term Mare Nostrum, and Mussolini's use of it, is explored on our Mare Nostrum page; the historical events are described in various pages, principally Battle of the Mediterranean. This page cobbles together sections from various other pages, with an added spin towards the editor's point of view. The POV it pushes is the notion that the Mare Nostrum was a reality during WWII; it does this without the aid of any source that asserts the use of the term for this period, and by a selective reading and presentation of the material used. It is cleverly done, and looks plausible (hence, partly, the long discussions) but it is propaganda, nonetheless. Xyl 54 (talk) 01:52, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The term Mare Nostrum was used by fascist propaganda, the article contains sections about fact described in other articles.User:Lucifero4

Comment: That is why the article should be deleted. If the article was about "the term Mare Nostrum as used in fascist propaganda", it might be worth keeping. Instead, it seems to be nothing more than a POV-fork of "fact[s] described in other articles", cobbled together around the propaganda term. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:55, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' or redirect; appears to fork several other articles as described above. Sandstein 05:24, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge and redirect'~~ to Mare Nostrum. This is a content fork; some substantial description of Mussolini's conception is desirable at Mare Nostrum. This search term is irregular. Carrite (talk) 17:01, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Awwww, crap, upon further review this article is much better than Mare Nostrum. THAT'S the article that should be folded up and merged into this one, which should be renamed. Is anybody up for a do-over on this deletion nomination? Carrite (talk) 17:03, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further note: as to correction of whatever content issues exist, that's a task for the regular editing process, not AfD. Carrite (talk) 17:06, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 17:35, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Previous Afd (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Italian Mare Nostrum) closed as Keep, but consencus was ignored and the article was turned into a redirect. Nominator's contention that the article "seeks to push a fascist agenda" is not borne out by the article, which clearly explains this was period fascist propaganda. Edward321 (talk) 00:42, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MacMed^talk _stalk 01:52, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Okay, I think this is how this should go. (1) Close this a keep. (2) Merge the existing Mare Nostrum article into this one. (3) Rename this page "Mare Nostrum." This is a fork, but the wrong article was proposed for deletion, in my estimation. Carrite (talk) 02:25, 26 June 2011 (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.