- 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 and move to Arco stelae, which seems to have marginally more support here than Arco I, as well as easier sourcing. Discussion about the best title can continue on the article's Talk page. Give me a shout (or tag with G6) if the new Arco I redir needs to be deleted to make way for a move. Owen× ☎ 22:24, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
Big Mama stela
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Big Mama stela ( | 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)
I cannot find any information on this topic to verify anything in this article. This seems like a very marginal topic that doesn't need its own page. Angryapathy ( talk) 17:58, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- After the good work that Joe Roe did with the page, I believe that we can rename this article Arco I and close the discussion. Angryapathy ( talk) 19:41, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Archaeology and Italy. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:48, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: Nothing for this stone item, lots for Big Mamas of all sorts found... Delete for lack of sourcing. Oaktree b ( talk) 20:29, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- Keep and rename to Arco I. This really is (was) a terrible article: as far as I can tell the "Big Mama" nickname is completely made up, the connection to Ötzi is highly speculative to say the least, and even the title is spelled wrong (it's about a stele, not a stela). But underneath it there is actually a notable topic, which is named in one of the external links as Arco I. Google Scholar and Google Books searches turn up plenty of sources that could be used to expand it. For now I've stubbed it to verifiable info. If kept it should be moved, if not to Arco I then to something like Arco stelae where we could cover the whole group of six. – Joe ( talk) 09:00, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- Rename per above. Llajwa ( talk) 16:38, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
- Merge to a not-yet-created Arco stelae page. I think Arco I alone might not meet the notability criteria. -- Broc ( talk) 18:56, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Looking for more clarity on whether Arco I is notable in itself or whether the resulting article should be Arco stelae.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering ( talk) 00:46, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
- Comment. Arco I itself is notable, I think the references linked above and now cited in the article amply show that. The question is more one of WP:PAGEDECIDE: covering them together in Arco stelae would avoid repeating a lot of contextual information, but we currently only have material on Arco I, so unless someone is volunteering to write about the others I don't see that as a viable outcome right now. In any case, I don't see why that needs to be decided at AfD. – Joe ( talk) 10:32, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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 and move to Arco stelae, which seems to have marginally more support here than Arco I, as well as easier sourcing. Discussion about the best title can continue on the article's Talk page. Give me a shout (or tag with G6) if the new Arco I redir needs to be deleted to make way for a move. Owen× ☎ 22:24, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
Big Mama stela
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Big Mama stela ( | 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)
I cannot find any information on this topic to verify anything in this article. This seems like a very marginal topic that doesn't need its own page. Angryapathy ( talk) 17:58, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- After the good work that Joe Roe did with the page, I believe that we can rename this article Arco I and close the discussion. Angryapathy ( talk) 19:41, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Archaeology and Italy. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:48, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: Nothing for this stone item, lots for Big Mamas of all sorts found... Delete for lack of sourcing. Oaktree b ( talk) 20:29, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- Keep and rename to Arco I. This really is (was) a terrible article: as far as I can tell the "Big Mama" nickname is completely made up, the connection to Ötzi is highly speculative to say the least, and even the title is spelled wrong (it's about a stele, not a stela). But underneath it there is actually a notable topic, which is named in one of the external links as Arco I. Google Scholar and Google Books searches turn up plenty of sources that could be used to expand it. For now I've stubbed it to verifiable info. If kept it should be moved, if not to Arco I then to something like Arco stelae where we could cover the whole group of six. – Joe ( talk) 09:00, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- Rename per above. Llajwa ( talk) 16:38, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
- Merge to a not-yet-created Arco stelae page. I think Arco I alone might not meet the notability criteria. -- Broc ( talk) 18:56, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Looking for more clarity on whether Arco I is notable in itself or whether the resulting article should be Arco stelae.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering ( talk) 00:46, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
- Comment. Arco I itself is notable, I think the references linked above and now cited in the article amply show that. The question is more one of WP:PAGEDECIDE: covering them together in Arco stelae would avoid repeating a lot of contextual information, but we currently only have material on Arco I, so unless someone is volunteering to write about the others I don't see that as a viable outcome right now. In any case, I don't see why that needs to be decided at AfD. – Joe ( talk) 10:32, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
- 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.