Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gessius Florus


 * 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 speedy keep‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Liz Read! Talk! 23:09, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Gessius Florus

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

The article has been tagged as being reliant on primary sources for 12 years now, yet there have been no changes. Doesn't pass WP:GNG to me. Asked it on the Teahouse as these Roman folks get away with it on the basis of being 2000 years old, but modern people never do no matter how notable they are as long as they don't pass GNG like this article here. Hence it is important to maintain consistency. Serrwinner (talk) 12:44, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2024 March 18.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 13:04, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:37, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep - Nomination is wrongheaded. It is a very clear GNG pass (we'll get to that) and if we know about a Roman after 2,000 years, then there is a prima facie argument that this is someone more notable then somebody that published some videos on YouTube. There is a very strong bias towards modern day subjects on Wikipedia, so we even have pages on presidents getting photographed now, and yet no comparable article about Julius Caesar getting his head on a Roman coin for the first time. WP:RECENTISM is a real phenomenon, so this argument should be reversed, if it is to be considered at all. So what about Florus? Well, this was someone who married Cleopatra. I suspect we can agree she is notable. He has multiple academic papers written about him, e.g., and he appears in many others that are about the affairs he was involved in, e.g. . He is in other encyclopaedias, e.g. and  and is also treated in multiple books, e.g., , . The fact Josephus treated him as a subject itself suggests a high level of notability, and given everything else, this ought to be a snow keep. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:29, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I have no doubt the fella might be notable but it has to be demonstrated. Being related to a notable person is not grounds to warrant a Wikipedia article. The article as it is still doesn't pass WP:GNG unless better sources are added. And on this note I could argue people posting videos to YouTube with a following of millions or tens of millions is still notable, just isn't demonstrated here and hence usually get deleted. Serrwinner (talk) 14:03, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I have presented the sources that more than demonstrate notability in the above. Sources don't have to be in an article for it to be notable, they just have to exist. Have a read of WP:BEFORE, and perhaps I could direct you particularly to heading D. Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:08, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Judaism, Israel, Palestine,  and Italy. Skynxnex (talk) 13:51, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:GNG does indeed apply to any topic, no matter of recent or ancient. But in that guideline it is specifically stated that notability is tied to a topic, not the status of an article, i.e. the existence of discussion in secondary sources, not the presence of such sources in the article. Checking if such sources exist should be done before a deletion nomination, as described in Wikipedia's deletion process. The topic here seems clearly to be notable, as demonstrated by the sources listed and those abundant in the suggested Google searches. Daranios (talk) 16:30, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep. This WP:Pointy nomination should be withdrawn. Notability is clearly demonstrated by the articles in the Jewish Encyclopedia and Encyclopaedia Judaica --Jahaza (talk) 17:11, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep Improper nomination. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 22:33, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep. A Roman governor of Judaea about whom any significant level of detail is known is notable.  His actions with respect to the Jewish community and helping to inspire a revolt against Roman rule are obviously notable.  His relationship to notable persons does not make him notable, but the fact that he obtained his position due to these connections is notable.  I note that while his wife may have been named Cleopatra, she was not the Queen of Egypt; but that has no effect on his notability.
 * There is nothing wrong with the sources cited; the fact that they ought to be supplemented with modern sources is irrelevant to AfD. Articles are deleted because it is impossible to verify their contents using reliable sources; not because most of the contents are currently cited to primary sources.  The remedy for this is to add modern sources, not to delete the article—or the primary sources, which certainly should be cited, since they are what any modern sources will be based on, and are widely available to readers.  P Aculeius (talk) 23:31, 18 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep. There are plenty of secondary sources to establish notability. Zerotalk 00:11, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Procedural Keep. Based on this thread, this one and the other Roman Empire AfDs were created to retaliate against the deletion of Tristan Tate and the drafting of some other articles about influencers/youtubers. A deletion nom with no merit, disruptive and with comments highlighting a serious lack of competence. Cavarrone 10:09, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep. Clearly notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:12, 19 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep per  User talk:Serrwinner, this is a pointy nomination of a clearly notable subject. FortunateSons (talk) 14:05, 19 March 2024 (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.