Talk:Galus Sulpicius (consul 4 BC)

Does Galus Sulpicius meet notability standards? If he were a consul ordinaris I'd say yes, but as a suffect I have my doubts. -- llywrch (talk) 05:15, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I would say yes, on the basis that the Augustan suffects were still notable members of the Senate (even though in the case of Galus Sulpicius there is nothing still extant about his career). If we were talking about the suffect consuls from later in the Principate, when there may have been anywhere from six through to twenty in a given year, then there may be a case, but not for this year, when he was only one of two suffects. Oatley2112 (talk) 08:14, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You might be right. However, in the case of many suffect consuls, this was simply a legal step to enable them to hold more responsible governing positions, specifically as consular governors (e.g. Roman Britain) or proconsulates, & since those alone would make an individual notable in those cases the question whether a suffect consul makes one notable is moot. On the other hand, a person being a member of the Roman Senate -- which wasn't so much a legislature or governing body as it was a social class -- isn't notable in itself. Unless all outrageously wealthy people -- even those who inherit their wealth -- are notable; the Senate comprised the wealthiest few hundred Roman citizens, less than even 1% of the population. But since the last couple of times I nominated an article for deletion didn't carry, I'm not interested in trying it with this one. -- llywrch (talk) 18:04, 4 May 2016 (UTC)