Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aka II of Commagene


 * 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 redirect to Thrasyllus of Mendes. Nobody is for keeping the article, but there is no consensus about whether to delete it as unverifiable or to redirect/merge it with Thrasyllus of Mendes, where this Aka and the uncertainty about her is mentioned. Absent consensus to delete, a redirect is the most consensual outcome. Editors may want to decide about how and whether to mention Aka in the target article, and if she ends up not being mentioned, the redirect can be submitted to RfD.  Sandstein  10:08, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Aka II of Commagene

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Highly WP:OR-ish article of an obscure royal whose existence is rendered dubious by the source which the article itself cites, Beck on Mithraism. The specific genealogical details apparently come only from "Royal genealogy of Mithradates III of Commagene at rootsweb" (self-published online source). The basis of this person's existence, according to the article, is "a preserved incomplete poem", but the source Beck on Mithraism asserts that this is a "real uncertainty", and adds that the correct reading of line 15 of this poem excludes, in my view, an earlier and widely current interpretation which gave Balbillus himself 'a royal mother, (?)Aka'. The other source which the article cites, Gundel 1966, mentions "Aka" in passing, but his information must be outdated in view of Beck's anyway. Much of the content sounds outright made-up (statements like ; ; ).

Given that this person's existence is very doubtful, and that the article is more misleading than useful, this should be deleted. The source is already used on Thrasyllus of Mendes, which disposes of the need to merge. Avilich (talk) 01:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Avilich (talk) 01:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Avilich (talk) 01:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Avilich (talk) 01:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete We should not create separate articles on people whose very existence is not shown to be real, unless the coverage of them as an unreal person is enough to make them notable, which is not the case here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:36, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge to Thrasyllos. There is no indication of notability here, but I'm not confident that Aka II didn't exist and I'm not at all confident that the scholarly consensus is that she didn't exist. Beck's declaration that a particular reading of a poem is "correct" doesn't make earlier scholarship "outdated" in quite the same way that, say, archaeological evidence would. Even if her existence is disproven, she ought to be mentioned as a disproven figure (as is done with various phantom royals of Hellenistic Bactria). She is discussed in M. Chahin. 2001. The Kingdom of Armenia, 190ff. and mentioned in Levick, Tiberius 1999. Furius (talk) 21:49, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Addendum: Aka II isn't currently mentioned in the main text of Thrasyllus of Mendes, so I don't think that the argument against merging holds water. Furius (talk) 21:50, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Aka II isn't currently mentioned in the main text of Thrasyllus Yes, she is. She is discussed in M. Chahin. 2001. The Kingdom of Armenia, 190ff. and mentioned in Levick, Tiberius 1999 No, she isn't. There's nothing in either, provide quotes or that isn't true. Even if the sources did discuss her, merging would only be required if the present article did so, which it doesn't. Beck's declaration that a particular reading of a poem is "correct" doesn't make earlier scholarship "outdated" in quite the same way that, say, archaeological evidence would Yes it does, especially since evidence of a stronger kind ('archaeological evidence') doesn't exist. Avilich (talk) 23:30, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It is good that you have updated the Thrasyllus article to mention the name. Furius (talk) 01:37, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Which I took from the source itself, not the article which you are saying should be merged with it. Avilich (talk) 04:51, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Look, it comes to exactly the same thing. The name and hypothesis wasn't mentioned in the Thrasyllos article when I initially commented. They are now, so you have done what I was asking for. Furius (talk) 00:56, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * They are not the same thing; "merging" entails preserving and perpetuating the article's content, but in this case, just about anything said about "Aka" is unverifiable or made-up (eg. ; ; ). If you can't identify what you want merged, with the attribution to the original author preserved, then don't vote merge at all. You could also explain (or cross out) your baffling remark that "Aka" is covered by those two sources (Chahin and Levick), when they do not say so much as a word about it. Avilich (talk) 02:59, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Fine. Furius (talk) 23:29, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee  //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 17:51, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge (or redirect''' to her husband. Nothing about her is notable in her own right.  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:17, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment This article should definitely not be merged or redirected. The content is essentially unverifiable, not even because this person is almost certainly nonexistent, but rather because even the coverage of this topic as a nonexistent person doesn't support most of what the article says (original research in other words). Compliance with V and OR shouldn't be negotiable here. Avilich (talk) 00:43, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * The source is . Page 136 has the family tree with Aka married to Thrasyllus.  Page 94 has Tiberius in the marriage of Aka.
 * Cramer was a history professor .  argues that Cramer "went one step too far" and on  blames part of this on  who made the daughter of Antiochus II link.   thinks that Aka II is chronologically to have been the daughter of Antiochus III instead.
 * Mind you, this is all content for the article, and a reason not to delete it, but rather to include Kaplan as well. Uncle G (talk) 11:01, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The impression I get from Kaplan's snippets is that he doesn't think 'Aka' existed either. You're probably mistaking him for the somewhat outdated Cramer, who in p. 99 does have something similar, but with multiple question marks (evidently he's just speculating). Anyway, all these sources are doing is going back and forth about a single, dubious slot in a family tree. There's nothing that requires a standalone page. All you can really say after putting together all literature is something like: . I already added a similar notice at Thrasyllus of Mendes; Beck is already sufficient, but you can go ahead and add Kaplan as a citation there for good measure if you wish. Avilich (talk) 16:03, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Mind you, this is all content for the article, and a reason not to delete it, but rather to include Kaplan as well. Uncle G (talk) 11:01, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The impression I get from Kaplan's snippets is that he doesn't think 'Aka' existed either. You're probably mistaking him for the somewhat outdated Cramer, who in p. 99 does have something similar, but with multiple question marks (evidently he's just speculating). Anyway, all these sources are doing is going back and forth about a single, dubious slot in a family tree. There's nothing that requires a standalone page. All you can really say after putting together all literature is something like: . I already added a similar notice at Thrasyllus of Mendes; Beck is already sufficient, but you can go ahead and add Kaplan as a citation there for good measure if you wish. Avilich (talk) 16:03, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Mind you, this is all content for the article, and a reason not to delete it, but rather to include Kaplan as well. Uncle G (talk) 11:01, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The impression I get from Kaplan's snippets is that he doesn't think 'Aka' existed either. You're probably mistaking him for the somewhat outdated Cramer, who in p. 99 does have something similar, but with multiple question marks (evidently he's just speculating). Anyway, all these sources are doing is going back and forth about a single, dubious slot in a family tree. There's nothing that requires a standalone page. All you can really say after putting together all literature is something like: . I already added a similar notice at Thrasyllus of Mendes; Beck is already sufficient, but you can go ahead and add Kaplan as a citation there for good measure if you wish. Avilich (talk) 16:03, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star   Mississippi  15:42, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * (Changed vote) I have altered my vote to redirect, as what is now already in Thrasyllus of Mendes is all we would need as a merge. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:26, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete This person was formerly thought to be the wife of the emperor Tiberius's astrologer Thrasyllus, but most modern scholars don't seem to think, anymore, that she actually existed. Not that we can't have articles about imaginary people, but I don't think that quite fits the bill here. She might be worthy of a brief remark in Thrasyllus' article. My view is that there simply isn't enough data available for a decent stand–alone article. Delete. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:16, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Can this be ended already? Nobody wants to keep or even merge this, and what little can be gathered from the sources has already been added elsewhere anyway. If this is still up because because a redirect might be useful, then no, I don't think it will, since the title and the numeral may incorrectly imply this subject reigned as a monarch (yet another way this article can mislead readers). Avilich (talk) 14:30, 28 February 2022 (UTC)


 * 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.