Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julia Urania


 * 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 redirect to Ptolemy of Mauretania. Spartaz Humbug! 22:31, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Julia Urania

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

Obscure, non-notable subject of a dedicatory inscription set up by a freed slave in ancient Rome who is itself up for deletion here. Although she was possibly a 'queen', the actual meaning of this designation appears to be somewhat ambiguous in the sources, and there's no conclusive proof that she was related to the people the article claims she was (according to the website the article itself cites; this source I found tells a similar story). The article relies wholly on self-published sources and the subject probably fails WP:GNG; nothing seems conclusive enough for a standalone article in any case. Pinging who first pointed out that this person may not be notable, and  who wished to redirect this to the person he thought was her daughter (whether that is so in fact is not certain). Avilich (talk) 03:30, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and History. Avilich (talk) 03:30, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Drusilla of Mauretania the Younger. We don't have to be certain the two are related to redirect, do we? Both women are mentioned here (see p. 318). 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 03:49, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * That's the same source I linked. "We may suggest" and a question mark in the family tree don't inspire too much confidence. Avilich (talk) 04:09, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * A redirect doesn't necessarily imply that the two are physically related. But they are mentioned together in the only good source we can find. And "Julia Urania" is an unusual name, so I see no reason not to redirect. Anyone searching for "Julia Urania" should be directed to Drusilla of Mauretania the Younger, which includes the Classical Quarterly article as Further reading. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 04:18, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * You neglected to mention the two possible husbands, according to your own source, who have articles as well. I don't care which one is the best target, only that the problems described here be solved with article improvement or removal, though feel free to propose any alternative or stand by your original choice. Avilich (talk) 04:33, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Drusilla of Mauretania the Younger is clearly the better target. Why choose between two possible husbands when we have one possible daughter? Also, the Classical Quarterly article is named for and focussed on Drusilla. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 04:54, 23 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:45, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I also found this source which says "one need not linger" over her since "so little is known about the personalities" of that context and that she may not even have been a formal queen but a freed slave. The author also doesn't venture to postulate any relationships, so who knows if the "daughter's" article need even mention such an inconsequential and uncertain detail. At the end of the day, all we have is a name who somebody wrote down 2000 years ago and we don't know for sure what to connect it to or what it represents. Avilich (talk) 15:18, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Relisting comment: to better determine a redirect target if that's the ultimate consensus Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star   Mississippi  13:32, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete is the way to go I think, unless someone finds some reasonably significant coverage that has something to say about her that isn't speculation. As far as possible redirect targets as an alternative to deletion, the daughter seems like the best destination. But I'm not sure we really need an alternative to deletion here: we're not really sure much at all about this person, including what her name even was - basically, I don't know what reader would be looking for her in the first place under this name, so I'm not sure we're doing anything useful to anyone by having an article or a redirect for "Julia Urania". We should check that all the articles that link to Julia Urania have a one-sentence (or even less) note on her with that jstor article as a reference so that none of the articles are losing context in a way that implies Julia Urania was definitely a known, historical person with that name, but otherwise... -- asilvering (talk) 18:54, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 18:27, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Merge/redirect -- A person whose very existence is only known from a single inscription is unlikely to be notable. This is a better option than plain deletion, as someone may search for her.
 * Redirect to Ptolemy of Mauretania. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:02, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete, subject lacks sufficient sources for notability, no merge or redirect required. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:02, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete There are just not enough sources to show notability. We should not merge or redirect.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:00, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Ptolemy of Mauretania: I believe just based on historic relevance alone we shouldn't outright delete. I'd be more in favor of redirecting to this article, since that is the only known confirmed link between the subject and her notability. Amadeus22  🙋 🔔 02:39, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I disagree, there's no reason to prefer the husband to the daughter, and there are apparently two husbands, as said above. Subject is too obscure for someone to search it before the proposed redirect targets anyway. Avilich (talk) 15:00, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Clearly we are not keeping this but there is no clear consensus on where to redirect so can we settle that please? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 04:37, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment. This probably makes no difference, but according to this there are two known inscriptions. SpinningSpark 16:30, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The second inscription was found in Arles, far from Mauretania, and names a husband and son who seem utterly unrelated to the speculation about this article's subject. The author remarks how téméraire (I hope your French is better than mine) it would be to draw conclusions based on nothing but an analogie of name. NebY (talk) 22:09, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Comment in response to relisting question: while reaffirming that I don't think redirect is necessary given that no one is likely to search for her, I additionally don't think that redirecting her to either proposed option is helpful. The one source we have on "Julia Urania" is not sure whether she is Ptolmey's wife or Drusilla's mother; both are conjecture. (See:, p. 319.) -- asilvering (talk) 00:12, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Ptolemy of Mauretania or, as a second choice, Drusilla of Mauretania the Younger. Having to choose between redirecting a non-notable woman to her notable husband or notable daughter is difficult.  For that reason, I actually would not be averse to keeping the page, even though a GNG case looks impossible.  All her relationships can be given in context and the uncertainty of the information properly explained. SpinningSpark 13:08, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Replace with disambiguation? There are two inscriptions, almost certainly referring to different women, and speculation about the possible notable relatives of one of them. Could we have a disambiguation page along the lines of
 * Subject of an inscription found at Cherchell, possibly married to Ptolemy of Mauretania and/or mother of Drusilla of Mauretania the Younger
 * Subject of an inscription found in Arles
 * This would at least allow us to mention more than one of the proposed redirect tagets. NebY (talk) 13:52, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * If the inscription at Arles is not the wife of Ptolemy then not only would she appear not to be notable herself, but she has no relationship to anyone or anything notable, so a disambiguation page is inappropriate. You cannot use Arles as the target article on a disambiguation page unless you first shoehorn in a mention of her in the target article, and that would be WP:UNDUE. Spinning<b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 15:06, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah, good points. Thanks for thinking it through for me. NebY (talk) 16:12, 12 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Redirect for now. Stand alone notability is borderline, and rather weak, although I could see this go either way - assuming reliable sources are found. MY BEFORE gave hints that there is some discussion of her, but I couldn't find anything accessible, reliable and in-depth in the few minutes I spend. Do ping me if this is rewritten and I'll revise my vote. Oppose hard deletion as this is a searchable name. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  07:46, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @Piotrus The previous relisting comments are both hoping for clarity on the particular intended redirect target, if you want to throw in an opinion there. -- asilvering (talk) 08:20, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @Asilvering My choice is Ptolemy_of_Mauretania, because, a, it has an (unreferenced) paragraph about her (whereas Drusilla article has a sentence at most), and b, in my BEFORE, I recall seeing the name Ptolemy but not Drusilla. <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:33, 17 May 2022 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.