Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Appius Claudius Pulcher (triumvir monetalis 8 BC)


 * 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. Missvain (talk) 23:02, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Appius Claudius Pulcher (triumvir monetalis 8 BC)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This person didn't exist, and is apparently a combination of two distinct individuals. There's an 'Appius Claudius' (RE 15) who was exiled for adultery in 2 BC, and there's a 'Pulcher' (RE 291) who was triumvir of the mint c. 8 BC.

This article was created by a banned editor who was primarily concerned with genealogy, and his only source was a genealogical work of uncertain reliability (Settipani). Practically all the non-genealogical info was added by subsequent editors who weren't aware that the subject was in fact two different people. Aside from Settipani (I don't actually know what he says about this, the banned editor may well have misread him), none of the cited sources attribute all the information here to a single person; one of them, Wiseman, p. 213, explicitly distinguishes the exile and the moneyer, as does the REalencyclopädie (linked above).

The article's content is already covered in the articles of the two men's relatives and in the gens page, so there's no valuable information being lost here. Avilich (talk) 18:39, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Many have noted that they be the same, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. One course of action could be to just move the page to either "Appius Claudius" or "Claudius Pulcher" and focus on ONE aspect, but mention about the stuff that they may also have done/been involved in that historians have observed. We can include information about historians who reject the identification too 1, 2. Information scattered in other places is not helpful to a majority of readers.★Trekker (talk) 15:42, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * As far as I can see, 1, 2, and 4 say nothing of the sort, and 5 says exactly the opposite and reinforces my point. This seems exactly the sort of thing that should be scattered around or in the gens page. Avilich (talk) 16:47, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes they do.★Trekker (talk) 16:54, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Sources 1 and 4 simply cite no. 5 without any additional explanation, so those two support my side of the argument. No. 2 takes for granted that the exile Appius Claudius and a hitherto unmentioned consul are also different. Avilich (talk) 17:06, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thus, reviewing the 6 sources you provided (2 of the 7 links are the same source), 5 support the case for deletion and only 1 does not. Add it to the RE which I already cited, we have 6 references in my favor. Avilich (talk) 17:24, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * They don't support deleton at all.★Trekker (talk) 17:26, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I can sum them up very quickly here. No. 5 is Wiseman's article, which you (very suspiciously) said identified the two individuals, but he says the exact opposite. No. 1 (p. 246) and no. 4 (p. 239) reference no. 5 without any additional comments of their own. I'll assume you're correct in saying no. 6 also regards the two individuals as separate. No. 2 (p. 241) takes for granted that the exiled Appius Claudius and the 'consul' (whom Wiseman, in p. 220, seems to identify with the moneyer) are distinct. This leaves no. 3, which apparently goes no further than lumping them together on the index in the end, and (to my knowledge) adds nothing to the discussion. So, again, 6 in my favor, 1(?) in yours. Avilich (talk) 17:38, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Every single one of the sources mention scholarly discussions on the topic, which should be covered indetail some place, not clogged as simple bulletpoint entires on a gens article.★Trekker (talk) 17:30, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Excepting Wiseman, they do not at all. And besides, Wikipedia isn't a dump for every single argument ever made in scholarship, it just takes the mainstream opinion and presents it as fact. Saying something like X may be identical to Y, but this is disputed also hardly takes up half a line – the exact thing that would belong in a bulleted entry. Avilich (talk) 17:42, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Lean delete. The notability of this or these men is not good enough to warrant an article. He or they can be dealt with in Claudia gens, or Julia the Elder, or even Claudia Pulchra. T8612  (talk) 21:22, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:22, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I rest my case. The sources above and in the article make it clear that the banned creator was indeed in error when conceiving this article, and the (nonexistent) subject's notability has not been demonstrated. The keep voter has failed to make a case, and his own sources contradict his claims that this is all a single person and that there is significant scholarly discussion on the topic. This is not controversial and there's no reason for it to be relisted. Avilich (talk) 17:22, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete with no objection to making proper articles on the two individuals.  DGG ( talk ) 00:07, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Sources do not show enough notability to warrant his own article. Suonii180 (talk) 14:12, 27 May 2021 (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.