Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lucius Vibullius Hipparchus

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 merge to Eponymous archon. Consensus is that being an archon of Athens in Roman Greece isn't enough for notability, and that the information about this officeholder should be selectively merged to the table in the target article. Sandstein 07:06, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lucius Vibullius Hipparchus

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Obscure Roman who fails WP:BASIC and WP:INVALIDBIO due to absence of any meaningful biographical information aside from family relationships. Pointlessly deprodded under the mistaken belief that a local and probably symbolic officeholder such as this is automatically notable per WP:NPOL (the guideline says the exact opposite). If this office is so important, its holder is already listed at eponymous archon, making this article pointless. Avilich (talk) 17:00, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and History. Avilich (talk) 17:00, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: Some of the content into the table at Eponymous archon. No indication of notability, as by this point the archonship of Athens was not a significant office and there is no indication that he passes WP:GNG. As an aside, do you have to be so damn condescending all the time, or can you actually dial it back and work collaboratively?? Curbon7 (talk) 17:35, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

do i even know you Avilich (talk) 18:24, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Someone doesn't need to be known by you to notice that you have have a condescending attitude.★Trekker (talk) 15:46, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge relevant content into Eponymous archon and Redirect to the same. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 18:28, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I note that Hipparchus appears to have a column and a half of scholarship about him in Pauly-Wissowa. The just-deleted article about Lucius Vibullius Rufus corresponds with a shorter entry, and in all the immediate family takes up about four pages and eight columns, as well as a graphic showing the family relationships between the various relatives of Herodes Atticus that stretches across the top of two of them. Admittedly most of what I can understand without speaking German discusses the various relationships of this family of Roman aristocrats. But even proceeding from the principle that "notability is not inherited", the amount of space devoted to Hipparchus and his immediate family in the gold standard of classical encyclopedias ought to give one pause about concluding that none of these people are notable. The number of sources that mention them also suggests that they're considered notable by modern scholars, even if most of what is known about them is how they were connected. However, I once again suggest that WP:BEFORE was not followed either before the PROD or before the subsequent nomination for deletion. However, as my caution has already been dismissed as "pointless" in this and several other related nominations by the same editor—as has my insistence that "deletion" and "merger" are not the same thing—I will leave it there. P Aculeius (talk) 18:45, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Time and time again these shorter entries are shown to contain little more than propopographical trivia and a listing of primary sources (mostly inscriptions), with basically no biogrpahical details. Avilich (talk) 21:26, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Per above.★Trekker (talk) 15:42, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merger The proposed merge target is one of the worst possible choices: it's a list of people which isn't designed to hold the sort of content the current article has. This article is nothing more than a listing of relatives, which would only be worth something if the topic itself was notable, which it isn't. Wikipedia isn't a genealogical database and such information is no more appropriate in the proposed merge target than as its own separate article. I trust the closer will give less weight to these spurious votes which do not explain why merging to that proposed target is a valid ATD. Avilich (talk) 21:26, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- You're not supposed to make bolded "votes" when you're the nominator Avilich. Pretty sure I've seen people in AFD say its not even allowed.★Trekker (talk) 13:41, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That only applies to bolded delete votes Avilich (talk) 14:05, 8 May 2022 (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.