Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Opera publica

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 speedy keep per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete !votes. This qualifies for SK#1 because the redirect/merge !vote is not a delete !vote. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:53, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Opera publica

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

Seems to be a definition. Transwikied to Wiktionary seven years ago. Has been tagged as unsourced for over four years. Holdek (talk) 09:10, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator due to extensive expansion and sourcing of the article by Anarchangel. --Holdek (talk) 22:36, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:04, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:04, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or merge to Public works, per WP:Use English. Cnilep (talk) 04:38, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 04:05, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-The first of the above two votes shows the danger of assuming the brevity of an article is an indication of its potential. Both, the danger of assuming that Roman public works were the same system as modern ones. Roman historians will avoid the use of the phrase "public works" for the responsibilities of the Roman censors and Aediles, as they had many other duties than public works, and their public works duties included urban planning duties as well as infrastructure building and maintenance. The article has been expanded greatly, and has great potential for further expansion. I will definitely be first to say it, and I may or may not be excused for saying it, and hopefully I will be the last to say: Rome wasn't built in a day. Anarchangel (talk) 01:20, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 15:09, 29 May 2014 (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.