Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lucius Caesetius Flavius


 * 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. John254 02:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Lucius Caesetius Flavius

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

It's not nonsense, but Google doesn't have much of a clue nor did the related search it suggested. Apart from that, the article seems to be about something he did, not the person himself. Travellingcari (talk) 05:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC) See below

Procedurally adding the following article with identical text. Jfire (talk) 05:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Redirect both to Julius Caesar, from whence they came. Initial edit summary for both is "Creating a new article. Lifted word-for-word from the Wikipedia article on the Ides of March." Appears that was eventually merged to the Caesar article. Jfire (talk) 05:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Lucius Caesetius Flavius has been given proper context, but Gaius Epidius Marcellus still contains the old verbatim text from Julius Caesar. Jfire (talk) 17:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak keep Plutarch names him only as Flavius. The name Lucius Caesatieus is used in a 1923 dissertation but little else. I would say there may not be enough in the way of sources for a real article. There are some more results if you search for Lucius Flavius alone, but separating them from the Lucius Flavius X (e.g. Silva, Philostratus) personages will take time. There are a few small things he is known for beyond the diadem incident. In any case, this isn't a BLP. --Dhartung | Talk 07:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. The full name of this Roman tribune is given in Dio Cassius XLIV.9.  If I remember correctly, he appears in Shakespeare's Julius Caesar (play) as well, as the tribune Flavius. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep did I hear someone actually mention google i connection with roman history?DGG (talk) 04:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment I'd agree with some of what you say, although I'm still leaning toward redirect per Jfire's context. Without that information, this article makes no sense. I'm not saying it's nonsense but rather the feeling that you walked into an already started conversation and someone askes for your opinion and you have no idea... Can this article, and the one that has the same exact text, be given content so that someone can follow it. It seems to be more about a) the diadem b) Caesar or c) the Roman tribune than either of these men. Travellingcari (talk) 04:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Dhartung gives the context, so go add it. DGG (talk) 15:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Others are working on the article, I'm not familiar enough to give it proper context and explanation. Travellingcari (talk) 15:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Bold text I'm happy to withdraw my nom since notability has been established -- not sure about the other that was added. Travellingcari (talk) 22:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Tagged it context and unreferenced, I'm happy to withdraw it and move on as well. Jfire (talk) 22:41, 5 February 2008 (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.