Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rome 2.0

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 delete. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:15, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rome 2.0 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

No evidence of WP:NOTABILITY by coverage in third-party source; not even a website for this group is mentioned, hence possibly even WP:HOAX. Constantine ✍ 21:18, 13 August 2018 (UTC) this is a Facebook group without wider significance as yet. Constantine ✍ 11:22, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-This is an article about a group of young linguistic scholars who live around the world, since their website is currently under construction, as is their kick starter campaign, the only remaining third party source is a Facebook page made by a fan. I have also added more sources discussing the subject of the evolution of the latin language to modern ecclesiastic latin, a subject that I feel is inadequately covered by this, or any other encyclopedia. I have also removed Rome 2.0 from the list of claimant nations or micro-nations, instead classifying it as a mainly academic phenomenon. Much of the accusation levied against this article is based on personal opinion and standards; specifically, use of the word "preposterous," to describe the legitimacy of a student-run organization. User talk:Modernantiquehistory

Keep: Despite the diminutive Facebook group, the fact that this organization has an entirely fan-run and unaffiliated (though they call themselves "official") Facebook group shows that Rome 2.0 has notoriety outside of its circle, to garner a steadily growing base of support. The student groups behind Rome 2.0 are currently receiving attention from local reporters affiliated with the Harvard Crimson and the Register Forum.

@Modernantiquehistory: please read WP:NOTABILITY, specifically WP:GNG. Constantine ✍ 19:35, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:50, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:02, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom; the statement by the page's creator Modernantiquehistory confirms this is not currently a notable organization. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:24, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A search turned up nothing relevant about either the organisation or the self-proclaimed emperor. Fails WP:NORG. Narky Blert (talk) 12:04, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete nothing against the group, they just don't appear to meet notability guidelines yet. - Scarpy (talk) 19:33, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - can't see any WP:RS coverage.Tacyarg (talk) 13:13, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete sadly, as this sounds interesting. However, if the only remaining third party source is a Facebook page made by a fan then it's obviously not notable. Chetsford (talk) 20:05, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – this doesn't appear to have any relevance anywhere. For a long time there's been talk that the Vatican resembles the modern-day Papal States/Roman Empire and is, in fact, a successor to Ancient Rome more so than the actual city. The fact that this is a group doesn't make it any more notable. Redditaddict69 03:37, 29 August 2018 (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.