Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hyperuatas


 * 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 keep. Y.Ichiro (会話) 04:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Hyperuatas


Non-notable general for one year in ancient Greece. Google gives me 11 unique non-wiki results. MartinDK 14:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep Needed to keep the rest of the article in context. scope_creep 16:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment And by article he means Achaean League which already consists of many non-existent articles. A red link on an article does not qualify, sorry. Now if this was a template I would understand the argument but this seems like classic bending of policies. MartinDK 16:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete/merge Can be merged into Ancient Greece perhaps, but, his minor rule and influence on Ancient Greece is minor and next to non-existant, non-notable. Missvain 17:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand notable historical general with copious google hits. Valoem   talk  18:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. General officer commander in chief of a notable belligerent in a notable conflict, that's notable enough for me. Sandstein 19:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep This may not be a proper means of asserting notability, so feel free to discount this 'vote,' but I tend to feel that if a person is still known to histroy by name 2,500 after they died then they are notable enough to have an article. Furthermore, being a general in the Achaen League is rather notable; there should be much more information out there about him.  --The Way 10:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment That is a very valid argument. Unfortunately there is nothing about him to be found. Really it should be in the Achaean League article where people can look him up anyway when searching for him. But the thing about this is... he is already there and the article is just a copy of that text. So it is really just repetition of what is already in the main article. MartinDK 12:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, per Sandstein. WMMartin 18:52, 20 November 2006 (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.