Talk:Proclus of Laodicea

Deletion Proposal
What are the ground for deletion?Teishin (talk) 21:05, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * User:Carchasm proposed its deletion with the oxymoronic (and also incorrect) rationale "Lack of significant coverage in Secondary sources, only mentioned by name in the Suda." —David Eppstein (talk) 21:49, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * - I'm not sure that it's incorrect rationale, but I certainly will accept your assessment now that such a deletion would be non-controversial. I would need to do more investigation of the cited sources to determine how significant the coverage actually is - it looks like the cited source may indicate that there is a different Proclus that those other contributions correspond to. If there's a prior consensus that all articles in the suda should have their own articles, can you link me to it? I looked, and couldn't find anything.
 * However, I also understood your rationale for de-prodding, so I'm not sure why started this discussion here. &#32;- car chasm (talk) 21:57, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't know specifically about the Suda. But I have certainly seen prior sentiment in multiple AfDs that inclusion in a major encyclopedia should be enough by itself for notability here; the Suda would seem to qualify as one such. WP:NOTTEMPORARY is also relevant: if a topic was notable at the time the Suda was compiled, that notability is not temporary. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:39, 6 April 2022 (UTC)