Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Litinus


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:37, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Litinus

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Blatant OR, SYNTH, NPOV violations. Fictional genealogy of a well-known modern Greek family name (Deligiannis). Constantine  ✍  06:52, 18 May 2011 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 14:56, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Delete. If this were really "the most important Roman family" as the page said, it should be easy to find reliable sources about it.  But the only references on the page are to a YouTube video, a Facebook page, and what appears to be a sloppily laid out personal webpage, and a quick Google search doesn't turn up anything better.  Seems to possibly even verge upon being a WP:HOAX. Smeazel (talk) 02:59, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. I can find no evidence that Litinus was a gentile name among the Romans or was ever used as a cognomen. Whether the article is a hoax or just poorly conducted amateur genealogy, it's wholly lacking in reliable sources and fails WP:V. Deor (talk) 14:08, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Do not delete. If you don't know the Roman and Byzantium history it is your false. Open a history book or ask a professor in any university of the world. In university of Padova in Italy there are the coat of arms of the family Litinus. You have just to ask the university of Padova. Also it is very important to let to any person in world to add information about the name of Litinus. There are many opinions about the root of the name Litinus. I have not time to give you these information right now, but it will be good for all of us to share our knowleage. I shall add the historical information about the root of the name in the article. Also for people who know the basic history of roman empire I say to them that the king had the coat of arm ( fasces ) with 12 ropes. The coat of arm of Litinus which is the the walls of the university of Padova has an arm with a fasces with 12 ropes. So Litinus must be the name of a king of Roman. That 's why wikipedia can help us. In wikipedia we shall share our knowlenge. According to the profile of the users who want to delete this article and to the history of their profile and their articles in wikipedia, the users who want to delete this article are bad communists. I am saying bad beacause a good communist respect the history and does not try to modify and change it hiding the truth, and stopping the research. In wikipedia we research the history, and we call all the people to give and share the knowlenge . We are not make critism to the sociaty and to political system. Finally if a user like me, or like the writter of an article (litinus) has to present his knowleage according to some rules of the wikipedia (copywrites etc) , then you have to communicate directly with the user and to help him to represent his articles, and you must not delete the whole article because you have different political believes from the content of the article. Thank you.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.202.189.85 (talk) 11:37, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment This has nothing to do with "different political beliefs"; this has to do with WP:Verifiability. None of the information in your article seems to be verified by reliable sources.  The allegation that the editors !voting Delete are trying to "[criticize] society and the political system", or that this has anything to do with "different political beliefs", is just bizarre.  Please read the reasons for the !votes, as well as the policies WP:RS and WP:V.  (You might want to also read up on WP:AGF while you're at it.)  In Wikipedia, we don't share our knowledge, per se; anything on Wikipedia has to be backed up by reliable sources, and not be original research.  If you can point to some reliable sources backing up the article's content, that may change people's minds about deleting the article.  Ranting about "hiding the truth" and calling editors "bad communists" will not.  (Nor will inappropriately posting the same message to the AFD discussion and the participating users' talk pages, as you did.)  Smeazel (talk) 19:46, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Further Comment Regarding "opening a history book", I just did a search for "Litinus" on Google Books. On the first thirty pages of results, all but three of the results that came up regarding ancient Rome appeared to be the result of the optical character recognition mistakenly reading "Litinus" for "Latinus".  Of the remaining three, one was a similar misreading of "Licinus", and one of "Libertas".  There was one passing mention of a Litinus in the northern territories of Hispania Carthaginensis, but he was stated to be a "deacon".  There are results concerning the University of Padua, but all they do is confirm that someone named "Emmanuel Litinus Rhetymnensis" apparently existed in the seventeenth century; they don't back up any of the information in the article.  As for "Litinus Sabinus", this brings up no Google Books results at all, and only ten regular Google hits, six of which are from Wikipedia pages or mirrors, two of which were apparently written by the article's author, and the remaining two of which seemed to have been unreliable websites that may well have copied their material from Wikipedia.  There does appear to have been a Sabinus who quelled the results of the Gauls as stated in the article, but most sources give his full name as Quintus Titurius Sabinus, not Litinus Sabinus.  If there is a history book that verifies the content of the article, or even the existence of a Roman king named Litinus, you're going to have to be more specific about which book it is.  None of the thousands of books on Google Books seem to do so. Smeazel (talk) 20:25, 26 May 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.