Battle of Alba Longa: This is related to the template for deletion discussion here .  I also note that large portions of these articles are basically just content forks .  WP:CFORK .  They are also in many cases largely unattributed copyright violations , WP:COPYWITHIN , from me at Founding of Rome and Alba Longa .  Ifly6 ( talk ) 21:39, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There have been related discussions on this series of articles: WT:CGR#Questionable Article: Battle of Alba Longa , Talk:Battle of Antemnae#There is almost nothing here about the battle itself , [a] Talk:Battle of Alba Longa#WP:LAYOUT, WP:CFORK, WP:COPYVIO .  I also want to emphasise that there is also nothing to discuss about these "battles".  The information we have about these episodes from the (only) sources on them are basically single sentences.  Livy 1.5 says: So the king Amulius was being enmeshed on all sides by hostile purposes.  Romulus shrunk from a direct attack with his body of shepherds, for he was no match for the king in open fight.  They were instructed to approach the palace by different routes and meet there at a given time, whilst from Numitor's house Remus lent his assistance with a second band he had collected.  The attack succeeded and the king was killed.  Dion Hal 1.83.1 gives: These were joined by the countrymen... from the market-place with swords concealed under their clothes...  And having by a concerted attack forced the entrance... they easily slew Amulius Another tradition is also given at 1.84.8 Then, when great numbers came to town together with the accused... the grandfather of the youths acquainted them with all the circumstances of their fortune, and telling them that now... was the time to avenge themselves, he straightway made his attack upon Amulius The total sum of description in the ancient sources can be put into two long sentences.  As further evidence for the lack of possible sourcing for these articles: Query Scholar link Results "Battle of Alba Longa" https://scholar.google.com/scholar? hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C47&q=%22Battle+of+Alba+Longa%22&btnG= 0 "Battle of Rome" "753 BC" https://scholar.google.com/scholar? hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C47&q=%22Battle+of+Rome%22+%22753+BC%22&btnG= 3, all irrelevant "Battle of Caenina" https://scholar.google.com/scholar? hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C47&q=%22Battle+of+Caenina%22&btnG= 0 "Second Battle of Rome" "753 BC" https://scholar.google.com/scholar? hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C47&q=%22Second+Battle+of+Rome%22+%22753+BC%22&btnG= 1, irrelevant "Battle of Antemnae" https://scholar.google.com/scholar? hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C47&q=%22Battle+of+Antemnae%22&btnG= 0 "Battle of Nomentum" https://scholar.google.com/scholar? hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C47&q=%22Battle+of+Nomentum%22&btnG= 0 "Battle of the Lacus Curtius" https://scholar.google.com/scholar? hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C47&q=%22Battle+of+Lacus+Curtius%22&btnG= 0 "Battle of Lacus Curtius" https://scholar.google.com/scholar? hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C47&q=%22Battle+of+Lacus+Curtius%22&btnG= 2 Pings for discussants in previous discussions.  Викидим , P Aculeius , Caeciliusinhorto-public , Caeciliusinhorto .  I think that a reasonable solution would be turn all of these articles into redirects to Roman Kingdom or, since they all involve "Mr Rome", [b] Romulus .  Ifly6 ( talk ) 21:54, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I now believe that Battle of the Lacus Curtius should be kept and renamed to Battle of Lacus Curtius .  Alternatively, there is also the title Battle in the Forum which is more common than Battle of Lacus Curtius .  Regardless, I don't think BLC needs to be deleted.  Amendments have been made to reflect that.  Ifly6 ( talk ) 03:02, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Notes ^ See also TableSalt43's very short – and in my opinion insufficient – defence of the verifiability of the battle there: a book written by Marc Hyden has provided speculative and biographical information about Romulus, and his campaigns .  Such information is elided by Hyden's statement on p.  x that My goal is not to present this as history , but as the myth that later Romans knew well .  I also doubt that Hyden's book is itself a reliable source but I have a very strong WP:ACADEMICBIAS .  Ifly6 ( talk ) 21:49, 14 March 2024 (UTC) ^ See Mary Beard, SPQR (2015) p 71, giving that translation of Romulus' name.  She also conveys the general consensus that Mr Rome did not exist.  I think basically only Carandini thinks he existed, which is a WP:FRINGE view among archaeologists.  --- Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Military .  Shellwood ( talk ) 21:45, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and edit to make it clear that the battle is mythological.  Many countries or former countries have legends about their beginnings that are not literally true but are nonetheless notable.  See Yellow Emperor , for example.  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 21:58, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't believe that any of these "battles" are sufficiently detailed in the sum total of the ancient sources to justify their own articles.  They would be most suitably covered in Romulus , Romulus and Remus , Founding of Rome , or if we really want to focus entirely on myth, something like Founding myth of Rome (which would be most clear as to this not having happened).  Plainly, there are no sources; there is no significant coverage.  WP:GNG .  Ifly6 ( talk ) 22:18, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It doesn't matter if they were "originally" detailed—most of the interest is in the historiography and commentary in the intervening two millennia.  Remsense 诉 22:29, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This does not exist.  There is no historiography of these "battles".  Please do not confuse the existence of sources on Alba Longa, a mythological city, or Romulus, a mythological person, as also being about these battles .  I am not listing Alba Longa or Romulus for deletion.  Ifly6 ( talk ) 22:31, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep – these events border on things known about Rome by the general public.  Of course they're mythology, but a single TWL search for "Alba Longa" immediately returned a full monograph on the historiography surrounding it.  [1] A quick perusal of the source list affirms that there's plenty of broader secondary and tertiary coverage.  Remsense 诉 22:27, 14 March 2024 (UTC) Now delete , per below.  Remsense 诉 00:33, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] References ^ Grandazzi, Alexandre (2008).  Alba Longa, histoire d'une légende (in French).  Rome: École française de Rome.  ISBN 978-2-7283-0412-7 .  OCLC 298179338 .  Those source lists are largely stolen without attribution from me!  I read them.  They do not discuss these "battles".  They discuss the founding of Rome , which is a far broader topic.  These articles are about "battles" and not the founding of Rome.  Ifly6 ( talk ) 22:38, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'll concede these points, then.  Now leaning delete .  Remsense 诉 00:32, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Mythology and Italy .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 22:24, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 22:28, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , or, failing that, redirect to Romulus .  Ifly6 presents a convincing case that these articles' very titles are OR , so I'm not sure we even want to have them around as redirects, but the most important thing is that they not stay around as full-fledged articles.  Ifly6's argument about how little material there is on each battle is supported by the articles themselves; the events in question are briefly described, and much of the text of each article describes related events in the other battles.  The result is a lot of repetition between distinct articles, and it makes more sense to have this sequence of mythical events discussed in a single place.  Moreover, writing about mythical events while making it clear that they didn't happen is not impossible, but it is difficult.  It's more difficult if they have their own articles.  An article with a battle is liable to accumulate an infobox with troops strengths and other details—these ones already have—which gives the impression that the events happened even if the text of the article says otherwise.  A. Parrot ( talk ) 23:05, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Lacus Curtius, delete/merge the rest .   As far as I know, that's the only battle described in article-level detail in Livy; I would need to review Dionysius and Plutarch on the others, but as presently written they're no more than stubs with no obvious potential for expansion, surrounded by vast clouds of information that are largely duplicative, and which belong under Romulus, Romulus and Remus, or whichever other articles concern the founding of Rome.  This came up because someone linked an article on my watch list to "Battle of Alba Longa", which in Livy is only a few sentences about Romulus and Remus ambushing and slaying their wicked uncle with the help of their friends, the shepherds.   And that description is pretty much all there is to say about the event, so finding an extensive article covering everything about Romulus and Remus and barely mentioning a "battle" (which isn't even described as one in Livy) astonished me.   I thank Ifly6 for initiating this discussion, since I hesitated to do so due to all of the technical considerations.  Mythological occurrences can certainly be the subjects of articles, irrespective of their historicity.   But with most of these, there's just not much to say; the chief exception is that there's quite a lot about Titus Tatius making war on Rome, including details of the battle and things said to have occurred during it.   That's why I think that one can stay, although it probably needs to be pared down to focus on the battle, and its immediate antecedents and consequences.   I'll mention one qualification: often Dionysius or Plutarch offer a lot more detail than Livy, so it's possible there's more to say than the articles currently do.  P Aculeius ( talk ) 01:28, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Looking at the history and also at Google Scholar, I now agree with this position.  I think the name Battle of the Lacus Curtius should be changed to Battle of Lacus Curtius given that the former has zero results on Google Scholar whereas the latter actually appears in the literature (albeit with only two results).  Ifly6 ( talk ) 03:00, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] An alternate redirect target could be The Rape of the Sabine Women § Story .  Ifly6 ( talk ) 03:05, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, that's a possible target, but I think this one battle is a bit much to fit under that heading, and it certainly has a lot of detail in Livy: the fight of the champions, Hostus Hostilius and Mettius Curtius, one of whom had to be pulled out of the swampy ground in what would later be the Roman Forum (after it was drained by the Cloaca Maxima); Romulus vowing a temple to Jupiter Stator in order to hold the Roman line; Hersilia and the Sabine women interceding to prevent further bloodshed and reconcile the two armies, etc.   And as I said, I haven't checked to see how much additional detail is in Dionysius and Plutarch.   Between these three sources, there's often quite a lot of narrative!  P Aculeius ( talk ) 04:03, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I meant for the other articles ("Battles of Lacus Curtius" and "Alba Longa" excepted) which largely discuss Romulus' mythical adventures against the Sabines.  Ifly6 ( talk ) 05:11, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or redirect all, except Battle of the Lacus Curtius , remove "the" from the title of the latter.  There is next to zero information on these topics and thus no scholarship.  So the articles can contain only either (1) a two-sentence description from a primary source (e.g., Plutarch), (2) a purely fictional (modern, not based on any historical records) description of the battle, (3) a retelling of the material distantly related to the topic (say, story of Romulus ), or (4) a WP:OR combination of the previous 3 variants (this is currently the case).  Either configuration obviously violates one or more of our rules.  The classical history is a well-established field, there is absolutely no reason to use the modern fiction literature (see the brief discussion of source used without citing it ) or primary sources.  In the case of these articles, there are essentially zero reliable sources that cover the subject in any detail (because there is no material for historians to work with), even the names of some of these "battles" are impossible to find in the serious history works.  -- Викидим ( talk ) 05:10, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or Redirect all to Romulus, per Ifly6, A. Parrot, et al .  Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!  10:16, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or Redirect Paul August ☎ 11:20, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or Redirect as above.  As separate events, these lack notability.  This is reflected in the repetitive article structure, in which the "subject" event is dealt with in a few lines, surrounded by massive preamble/background and aftermath sections.  Thus they are all slightly refocused content forks of the same foundation myth; the reader is best served by a single account of that.  NebY ( talk ) 17:46, 17 March 2024 (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.

Discussion outcome: no consensus