Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Legio XXIV Caesarian Rapax Victrix


 * 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 both. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 22:04, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Legio XXIV Caesarian Rapax Victrix

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Multiple Hoaxes. Sheesh, where do I start? First, I looked at my copy of the Oxford Classical Dictionary 2nd edition, & couldn't find either unit mentioned. Just to be sure, I looked at both G.R. Watson, The Roman Soldier (Cornell: University Press, 1969) & A.H.M. Jones, The Later Roman Empire (Baltimore: John Hopkins, 1986), & nothing in either. (There is a Legio XXI Rapax, but its history doesn't match what is written in the article on that unit; I can find no mention of any Legio with the title "Nikoplic Fortis".) Furthermore, neither article has any decent sources offered. While Legio XXIV Nikopolic Fortis has a couple, a citation consisting of "Tacitus, Annals" doesn't let someone with a copy of Tacitus' work verify anything in this article, & by this point I don't believe his claim that Stephen Dando-Collins's book says anything remotely to what appears in these articles appears -- & in the remote case something does, I'd want to know what sources Dando-Collins cites so I can verify those. Lastly, the style of both articles lead me to think they were written under the influence of excessive stimulants. I'd use PROD or CSD to cleanse these sores from Wikipedia, but other editors have already tried that remedy & the tags were removed. Nor can I use them because they're not obvious hoaxes: the numbering & naming of Roman Legions are hardly common knowledge. I don't know anything about this editor & I should not be such a meanie-butt, but I'm fighting the urge to just indefinitely block this joker for creating -- & protecting -- two hoaxes like these. I hope, if not one other Admin thinks he's unsuitable for Wikipedia, he never tries shit like this again. -- llywrch (talk) 20:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as possible hoaxes. The author of the Legio XXIV Caesarian Rapax Victrix article blanked it in this edit: justifying a speedy deletion per WP:CSD G7: blanked by only author to make substantive contributions.  The only edits by other authors were minor technical ones. In the Legio XXIV Nikopolic Fortis article, the author did not blank it, so it needs to continue the AFD. A google book search through the claimed reference found no mention of this legion: ,. Was there a Legion XXIV?  Some Google Book search results (none in English) imply there was, but did it have anything in common with the description in this article? There is a modern Roman Legion reenactor group in the US called "Legion XXIV." Edison (talk) 21:37, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * At one point Rome had as many as 30 legions in the field, but only one were assigned number above XXII. (That exception is Legio XXX Ulpia Victrix.) What happened was when the Emperor (or his flunky assigned to the task) raised a new legion very often the numbering would start over with "Legio I"; this duplication led to a large number of Legions up to about X who had to be distinguished primarily by their surnames, which led to confusing many classical historians. In short, as far as I can determine there are no legions with ordinal numbers from XXIII thru XXIX; but I listed these nominations here in case there is someone better versed in classical history than I. -- llywrch (talk) 22:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * As an additional note, while surfing the Net idly, I came across this translation -- in progress -- of the relevant articles from the Realencyclopädie der Classischen Altertumswissenschaft. Neither unit is mentioned, but I believe the translation is incomplete. In any case, the Realencyclopädie (otherwise known as Pauly's Wissenschaft) is the ultimate authority for many Classical topics so I'm providing this link to everyone else for future use. -- llywrch (talk) 20:23, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete unless cast-iron sources can be produced, which seems impossible. I agree entirely about style, this clearly wasn't drawn from the sort of reference sources that we would expect for an article of this sort. The 24th is alleged to have survived as a continuous formation for six centuries. I think not. AJHingston (talk) 01:02, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete both per the detailed and convincing argument made by the nominator. As noted by AJHingston, the alleged longevity of Caesarian Rapax Victrix is a good hint that it's a hoax.  Nyttend (talk) 23:57, 19 March 2011 (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.