Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darius II of Media Atropatene


 * 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. Stifle (talk) 14:44, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Darius II of Media Atropatene

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

An odd case of a seemingly non-existent person. Apparently, from what can be gathered from the very unreliable sources here, an informal debate took place during the 1990s between some amateur genealogists concerning the identity of the father of Vonones II and Artabanus II, kings of Parthia. Christian Settipani once identified him as "Darius", the subject of the article and nomination, who is here misleadingly called "Darius II" (there was no king of that name). However, by 1998, the same author had admitted that this was no more than a placeholder name resting on no authority whatsoever. This is revealed by an email which the article cites as a source.

In other words, the genealogist who originally conceived "Darius II" already had long disavowed his historicity before this article was created (see the original revision here, where it is claimed that "Darius II" was the father of the two Parthian kings; the claim has been since removed). It goes without saying that no reliable sources attest any "Darius II of Media Atropatene". The article's contents are ultimately traceable to what seem to be forum posts and private correspondence.

Pinging who brought this to my attention. Avilich (talk) 14:22, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Avilich (talk) 14:22, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 14:34, 17 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete - Not even an actual person, let alone a notable one. Just invented to connect between documented people speculated to have been related through an unknown intermediate generation, and assigned a name simply because it was the type of name the associated families were fond of using. All sources are non-WP:RS. Agricolae (talk) 14:51, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete I am unable to find anything to satisfy WP:V. 68.189.242.116 (talk) 16:47, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Leave a short article giving the information in the nom (with sources). Once an idea is published (even if it is wrong and rescinded), the idea has legs and needs to have a placeholder explaining why the content is now regarded as a fantasy.  If this is not done, his alleged existence (though incorrect) will rear its ugly head again.  Peterkingiron (talk) 18:30, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * If you think anything from the internet or a private email which a Wikipedia editor misinterpreted should be broadcasted as truth, WP:V and WP:RS be damned, then you're not serious. Avilich (talk) 19:18, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * This is not a case of the content 'now regarded as fantasy' - that is a misunderstanding of the situation. From the time of conception it was never anything more than a convenient placeholder and not a real person. Something along the lines of "These two men appear to have been brothers so we will hypothesize a common father for them, who we will call 'Darius' because it is more convenient to be able to call him something and this was a name used within the extended family." Such a person wouldn't qualify for an article, even a short stub, if they were actually real, let alone a person originally conjured into existence by a self-publishing author just to fill in a blank space in a pedigree. No, not every datum that has ever appeared in a self-published book need have a Wikipedia entry just in case someone stumbles across it and comes looking. Agricolae (talk) 20:55, 17 November 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.