Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quintus Arrius (Ben-Hur)

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 delete. Sandstein 18:47, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quintus Arrius (Ben-Hur)

[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)

This character doesn't resonate/mean anything outside the novel and its adaptations. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:20, 27 October 2020 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:55, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I am not seeing anything that goes beyond a plot summary and information on who played this character in various TV adaptations. At the same time, the list of 'who played him' could be merged to the Ben-Hur, I guess, through most of the information here is unreferenced (but it likely correct, the odds of hoaxes/errors here are low), if anyone wants to rescue this before it is gone. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:59, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question: "This character doesn't resonate/mean anything outside the novel and its adaptations." Genuine question, but what does this sentence mean? If taken literally it reads like a subjective claim of importance, but I feel like something else was meant based on the wording. Dark knight 2149 10:14, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to demonstrate a lack of WP:BEFORE and general awareness of the topic. Ben Hur was a huge best-seller in its day, comparable with Game of Thrones or Star Wars today. The author did lots of research and it does not seem a coincidence that there was a real Quintus Arrius, who was defeated by Spartacus. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:03, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, saying "Keep. It's a major character in a major work" is equally as bad as saying "Delete. Only a character in book and movies" for much the same reason. Neither of those arguments are really in line with WP:Notability, much less WP:DELREASON. Dark knight 2149 17:41, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A major character in a major work played by a series of major actors. Merger is not sensible because our other pages are concerned with particular texts or adapations. For an example of a source which highlights the character, see Quintus Arrius, the Roman Triumph, and Christianity. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:03, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing particularly substantial to meet WP:GNG. The preview of the above is more commentary on the work than the character, so it's not super useful unless there are other sources available. TTN (talk) 00:54, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ben-Hur: A Tale of the Christ. Since the plot summary section is already covered at the article about the book, and the casting information section variously covered at the articles on the individual films, there isn't anything left for a merge to accomplish. Reyk _YO! 08:42, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all The sourcing here is nothing near what we need to show notability. We would need substantive 3rd-party sourcing to show notability. For the record I read the book of Ben Hur, have seen multiple film adaptations multiple times. We just do not have the 3rd-party sources on either of these chaaracters enough to justify articles. Wikipedia is not Wikia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:26, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Johnpacklambert: Per WP:NEXIST and WP:ARTN, "not showing notability" isn't a reason to delete. So far, no legitimate rationale has been established. The summary above reads like "Delete. It's just a character in a book or movie." (WP:IDONTLIKEIT), which Clarityfiend still hasn't clarified. The "delete" support here itself (I'm sorry to say) is largely from users who have been voting "delete" on every nomination, and the one "keep" vote isn't much different. Dark knight 2149 00:33, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Darkknight2149: You pinged the wrong person. Shellwood (talk) 00:50, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops. Sorry about that.Dark knight 2149 00:58, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and/or redirect as there isn't anything substantial to meet WP:GNG. A search did not reveal sources to prove claims that this meets WP:NEXIST. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:01, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Nobody claimed that, largely because it's impossible to "meet" WP:NEXIST. Dark knight 2149 18:06, 29 October 2020 (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.