Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cealia Pompeius Pulchellus


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. ✗ plicit  23:20, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Cealia Pompeius Pulchellus

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

WP:HOAX. See also [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Classical_Greece_and_Rome#Cealia_Pompeius_Pulchellus? discussion] at WT:CGR. Ifly6 (talk) 21:47, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Ifly6 (talk) 21:47, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete Nothing to support existence + very very very implausible name makes it probable its nothing more than yet another hoax. Its amazing it managed to stay around for 13 years. Also amazing how bad hoaxers are at understanding Roman naming conventions/rules.★Trekker (talk) 21:49, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment. There is also a redirect to this page – Cealia, Cupid's blessing. – I think it should also be deleted. Based on the page history, it was the original page title here AFD'd. Ifly6 (talk) 21:54, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It will be deleted automatically if this article is deleted I'm pretty sure.★Trekker (talk) 21:55, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I mention it due to the redirect possibly providing another epithet; it, of course, gave no leads except back to Wikipedia. Ifly6 (talk) 21:58, 27 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete as per WP:G3. Found no proof of the subject's existence, and it wasn't even mentioned in the first cited source. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 22:27, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete as a hoax. Pretty obviously not an authentic name (although "Cealia" could have been a typo for "Caelia" or "Cerealia", which still would not go with "Pompeius"; I could not find any examples of "Pulchellus" in the C-S Datenbank, but there was a Cestia Pulchella who built a tomb for herself and the late Marcus Granius Dexter at Himera).  I note that nobody here explicitly mentioned checking the Historia Augusta, which presumably would be the source for any modern works mentioning him.  So I did, and there's nobody matching any of these names mentioned in the "Life of Commodus" (except for the Pompeianus who failed to assassinate him).  I don't know whether deleting the article will delete the redirect; it might have to be done separately.  P Aculeius (talk) 22:55, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Edit: I see the HA mentioned at CGR talk, mea culpa! P Aculeius (talk) 23:00, 27 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete as the Historia Augusta is not a reliable source, and there is no mention of this event in the biography of Commodus, either. Also, WP:VICTIM and WP:ONEEVENT suggest the place to cover this incident of rape and murder, which appears to be the only reason the subject might even be considered notable, would be in the biography of Commodus, since that is an existing article about the perpetrator. Whether the article is a hoax or not, the person appears to be non-notable, anyway, so we shouldn't have a separate biography in any case. A merger and redirect to the article about Commodus, if the facts can be verified from other sources, or perhaps one about the "Temple of Venus", of which there are several different ones in Rome, alone, could have been appropriate for a well sourced article, but this case appears hopeless. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 03:54, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The Historia Augusta may be notoriously unreliable, but most of the persons and many of the events it records are known from independent sources, and in many instances it is the only source available. While it must be treated with caution, the fact that a person or event is known only from the HA is not a good reason for deletion; even people and events whose historicity is dubious may be notable.  But in this instance, there are excellent reasons to regard the entire article as a hoax—primarily the fact that it isn't in the Historia Augusta, or any other source we know of, and because the name is implausible, and the article written as though it were the invention of a Wikipedia editor without much knowledge of Roman history, and without using any kind of authentic source—Roman or modern.  The key to this discussion is not whether the Historia Augusta is reliable, but whether the account comes from any Roman source, credible or otherwise—and it does not appear to do so.  P Aculeius (talk) 04:16, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Its 100% a hoax, even this "persons" name is an utter joke and impossible for an actual Roman to have had. Merge has no possibility to happen here.★Trekker (talk) 09:13, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete I did a search for Cealia Pompeius Pulchellus at https://la.wikisource.org/wiki/Historia_Augusta, found nothing. Koopinator (talk) 13:45, 28 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete, No coverage, doubtful existence, Alex-h (talk) 14:47, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete, a hoax. Even the obscure names from that age will get a listing in some of the classical directories/encyclopedias, and very unusual names like this even more so (hence the hoax), but zip for this person. Great spot. Aszx5000 (talk) 14:19, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom  --  Devoke  water  18:54, 3 June 2023 (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.