Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I Flavia Constantia


 * 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. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:57, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

I Flavia Constantia

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not pass WP:GNG for a stand alone article. WP:NOTEVERYTHING "Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject" If someone is feeling ambitious it could merge into Notitia Dignitatum but I think it unnecessary detail in a good article.  // Timothy ::  talk  08:56, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy ::  talk  08:56, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy ::  talk  08:56, 8 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep. de:Legio I Flavia Constantia lists enough additional sources to expand and meet the GNG. And really, when something survives in the historical record for nearly 2,000 years, it's bound to be notable. This isn't the kind of thing our notability policies are there to keep out. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 09:26, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I really hate this argument. Some historical people really are non-notable, and Wikipedia has way too many articles that are just paragraphs of context used to fluff out the simple fact that someone is named in a document but we know nothing more about them. It takes more than just the vicissitudes of document survival to render a person notable. Agricolae (talk) 16:35, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * this article is about a military unit, not a person, being a roman legion confers an indication of wikinotability (see WP:MILUNIT) but without more sources forthcoming, what there is appears to be suggesting that because there was a Legio II Flavia Constantia there must have been a I Flavia Constantia (btw there found this: "Thus Legion I Flavia Constantia, which shares its shield design with II Flavia Constantia Thebeorum, was originally IV Galeriana Thebeorum.", not sure if is useful), it doesn't look good. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:22, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I sort of derailed myself there by being too specific in my explanation, but the point remains - mere existence + extreme age ≠ automatic notability, whether it be a person, military unit, geographical feature, or anything else. Agricolae (talk) 16:44, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I've expanded the article with the sources from dewiki. I don't think its existence is just inferred from the fact that there was a II Flavia Constantia; as the article says, it's mentioned in the Notitia Dignitatum and apparently took part in the Siege of Singara (360). –&#8239;Joe (talk) 08:34, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * me bad:), yes it is listed in the Notitia Dignitatum ie. "Balistarii seniores. Prima Flavia Constantia. Secunda Flavia Constantia Thebeorum. .. Legiones comitatenses: .. Prima Flavia Constantia. Secunda Flavia Constantia Thebaeorum.". Coolabahapple (talk) 07:28, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I really love this argument. It goes right to the heart of what an encyclopedia is. Too many people seem not to realise that nearly all articles in nearly all encyclopedias are very short. Don't you remember what print encyclopedias were like before Wikipedia put them out of business? Phil Bridger (talk) 17:52, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * No, it goes to the heart of what the difference is between an encyclopedia and a prosopography. The latter is intended to catalog everybody/everything in a class. The former is not. Having a bunch of articles just to say that nothing is known about the subjects but that they appear on one document without further details is entirely unencyclopedic. There are GNG for a reason. Agricolae (talk) 19:06, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * We can legitimately disagree on what does and doesn't count as an encyclopaedia article, but I don't think the GNG supports your argument here Agricolae. You may not like "fluff context", but many historians do, and if they write multiple reliable sources about that fluff (as I think is the case here) it makes it notable. In any case perhaps we should turn this discussion away from the abstract and back to the availability of sources on this particular subject. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 12:57, 10 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Obvious Keep. This was a major, permanent Roman military unit.  The fact that we have relatively limited information about it (at least at present) doesn't make it non-notable.  None of the sections of WP:NOTEVERYTHING seem to relate to this topic.  We're not talking about an indiscriminate collection of information, the way that a list of valves that will fit type-J washing machines would be indiscriminate.  No matter how poorly documented they may be, Roman legions are certainly as notable as spelling bee competitions and brands of breakfast cereal.  P Aculeius (talk) 13:39, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: A legion mandates an article for itself. It can be improved later on; all articles start out rough. HalfdanRagnarsson (talk) 16:28, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep This was a permanent Roman legion that fought the Persians, that definitely makes it notable.
 * Keep. Clear pass of WP:MILUNIT. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:21, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep, meets WP:MILUNIT, improved article also shows the meeting of WP:GNG. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:11, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep The sourcing and content meet the various notability guidelines. Nick-D (talk) 05:10, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:MILUNIT. Meets notability guidelines. 0qd (talk) 22:32, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per Agricolae and everyone else. GPinkerton (talk) 02:56, 15 August 2020 (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.