Deletion of Res publica

Comment: without prejudice against someone writing an encyclopedic article on the topic in the future, since it is a dictionary definition and a repository of lengthy extracts from public domain sites. One alternative solution might be to stub it down, or to replace it with something from the 1911 Britannica. The nomination may arise from someone seeking to make a |point , but in fact it is a remarkably unencyclopedic piece of crappy writing, full of lines like "Already in Ancient Rome Res publica was a mixed-bag concept." It is a dictionary definition, better suited to Wiktionary than to an encyclopedia.   It is bloated with lengthy extracts totalling 1310 words consisting of public domain  classical writings and English translations, rather than having encyclopedic referencing of said works.  Wikipedia is not a repository for lengthy extracts from public domain files, per .  '''Note to closing administrator:'''  The "Keep" !votes are all either attacks on the nominator, or give no reason for keeping it, or say "I find it useful," or note that several people have edited it, or that it has been around a long time. None of those are valid "keep" arguments for AFDs
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT||WP:NOT)

Comment: This is obviously a valid article, but it's horribly unsourced. Note that Cicero and other ancient Roman sources are primary sources, and articles that rely solely on primary sources are most likely |original research. But since there's lots of modern scholarship available on this topic, the article can be improved to the point where it's not OR
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)