Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lucius Volusius Torquatus Vestinus


 * 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. There is consensus that this is, one way or another, a mistake--and it is not good to keep mistakes in Wikipedia. Drmies (talk) 03:27, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Lucius Volusius Torquatus Vestinus

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This name first came to my attention some months ago when I was working on List of Roman Consuls: none of my sources could confirm this person's existence. Despite a search on Google, I have been unable to find any reliable source that mentions him. The only original source which appears to even mention this person is a genealogical website which appears to be dodgy to me. In response to a query I left on the talk page last November, checked the two sources cited in the article, & neither mention Vestinus. I'm guessing that the original editor took the information from a website (perhaps the one I mention) & directly cited the sources provided there without checking them first. A good-faith article creation. However, at best this person is a phantom & at worst an inadvertent hoax. (P.S. I checked, & none of the criteria for Speedy Deletion appear to apply in this case.) llywrch (talk) 18:28, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:55, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:55, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:55, 28 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete If the cited sources don't support the claims, the article is unsourced with the likely supposition of a hoax. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 18:58, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect to Titus Sextius Lateranus (consul 154). Seems to be a mix of that individual (the long version of Titus Sextius Lateranus' name described on that page and in Mennen includes "Lucius Volusius Torquatus Vestinus"), and his father. Smmurphy(Talk) 19:49, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: Okay, now I can see where that name came from originally: someone with a hazy grasp of polyonomous names (which was a typical practice in the 2nd century AD Roman Empire; T. Sexius Lateranus' full name is an example of that) assumed L. Volusius Torquatus Vestinus was the father of the consul of 154, made up the rest of the material, & put it up on the Internet somewhere where it was found & used in the Wikipedia article. Just one more example why I've become more conservative about accepting information I find -- even from experts. -- llywrch (talk) 20:44, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirect to T. Sextius Lateranus. It could be interpreted as a mistake for the consul, but polyonymous Roman nomenclatures tended to accumulate by adding the names of maternal ancestors, so there probably was a grandfather or great-grandfather with this name. A couple of other individuals with the combination "Volusius Torquatus" show up in the EDCS database.  Whether there'll ever be any direct evidence of this particular person other than the survival of his name in the consul's nomenclature is uncertain, but not impossible.  P Aculeius (talk) 16:15, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - I want to 'delete' because info from the Internet sounds like hoax to me. A few years ago, I came across a music article about an orchestral interpretation of the entire Bee Gees catalog. I don't know the Bee Gees, but I know music and the 'nomenclature' it was using told me straight-away it was a hoax, which it was. But it was hard to explain it to others until an admin understood what I was saying. The source came from the "internet." If you're sure, I'm happy for a keep, but it sounds dodgy to me. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:21, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It's certainly not a hoax; Smmurphy and Llywrch have already identified the original source of the name. There was a consul whose full (known) nomenclature was either Titus Sextius Lateranus Marcus Vibius (probably Ovellius or Quietus) Secundus Lucius Vol [usius Torquatus?] Vestinus.  Based on what we know of Roman nomenclature of this period, it's likely that his maternal ancestors included men named Marcus Vibius Ovellius (or Quietus) Secundus and Lucius Volusius Torquatus (with or without Vestinus).  However, we can't be sure which if either was his maternal grandfather, or if one of them was his great-grandfather on his maternal grandmother's side or his paternal grandmother's side.  It would have depended largely on which was more illustrious.  And while we know of men with similar names, we don't know at this point if they were his ancestors or collateral relatives such as uncles or cousins.  So an article about one of them based solely on the appearance of the name in the consul Sextius' nomenclature seems unjustified, although at some point there may be sufficient information to warrant such an article, whether or not the person referred to can be clearly identified in terms of relationship to Sextius.
 * Such an article could be created and moved over the redirect, or created out of the redirect, if we turn the current one into a redirect; but if we simply delete the page, then someone running across the name as a fragment of Sextius' nomenclature might not find him. Which is why a redirect to Sextius is probably a better idea than deleting the article, until such point as the name warrants an article of its own.  In other words, it's not a hoax; it's someone with a tenuous grasp of Roman nomenclature and notability inferring without evidence that some maternal ancestor, about whom we know nothing but his name, was the consul's father, and that knowing his name is sufficient reason for him to have his own article, which really isn't the case.  P Aculeius (talk) 13:23, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Redirect or delete?
 * Comment -- I am assuming this article to be a mistake rather than a hoax. If so, there is confusion.  The solution thus needs to be a limited merge that will explain why there is a redirect to a name that appears to be unconnected.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:24, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 07:11, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I learned awhile ago to never !vote merge/redirect unless that was a sure outcome because not only would it leave the article in place waiting on a second process to occur, it fails to establish that the community wants to remove the content as-is. !Voting delete establishes firm community consensus, removes the possibility of a redirect getting hijacked (which is popular as of late), and provides for WP:G4 in the future. If there was content here worth saving, editors can move it over to other applicable articles now before this concludes. Anyone supporting merge/redirect is really !voting "keep", which is probably not their intent. I'm not a classical era historian so I don't have much faith that these two are the same person, anyway. That assertion might be true but I have little faith in leaving a redirect. As there is no deadline, there's no need to "save" content. Let someone more responsible add this content years in the future and do so properly. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 07:50, 5 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment: I rechecked all of the sources given in this article, to see if there was something that Llywrch or Mikythos missed.


 * I can't see page 165 of Brian Jones' The Emperor Domitian, but from pages 164 and 166 he seems to be discussing persons whom Domitian raised to the consulship during his reign, which does not suggest that it mentions a consul from AD 112, as this article asserts (Domitian died in 96). The index contains listings for one Lucius Volusius Saturninus, consul in 87, and one Quintus Volusius Saturninus, consul in 192.  Lucius is the one mentioned on page 165, and I cannot rule out the possibility that it mentions a son, but there is no "Volusius Torquatus Vestinus" in the index, and for reasons to follow I do not think it states that such a son was consul in 112.


 * Jörg Rüpke's Fasti Sacerdotum, cited to p. 1288 (one of four hits for "Volusius"; the other three don't look relevant), is a discussion of T. Sextius T. f. Lateranus M. Vibius Ovellius . . . Secundus L. Volusius Torquatus Vestinus, consul in 154. Note 4 says that he was the son of T. Sextius Africanus, consul in 112; not of L. Volusius Torquatus Vestinus.


 * PIR, vol. III, p. 487 (V 666), is an entry for (L.) Volusius Torquatus, son of the consul Lucius of AD 87. It indicates that he apparently married his cousin, Licinia Cornelia M. f. Volusia Torquata.  The entry says nothing about him being consul in 112, and it doesn't assign him the cognomen Vestinus.


 * Not cited is E. Mary Smallwood's Documents Illustrating the Reigns of Nerva, Trajan and Hadrian, which gives fasti for the reign of Trajan and indicates that we seem to have a complete list of consuls for 112; this list includes T. Sextius Lateranus but not L. Volusius Torquatus Vestinus. I do not see that or any similar name anywhere in her lists, either as a dated or undated consul.


 * Lastly, I mention that the entire article was written and documented by Anriz, whose chief interest in Roman history seems to have been illustrating Descent from antiquity, and who has in many other articles attempted to tie together various persons from Roman history whose connection seems at best uncertain.


 * So, in all this article appears to be mostly about a real person, Lucius Volusius Torquatus, although I can find nothing to suggest that he was surnamed Vestinus. The only logical source for that name is Rüpke, whose entry is not about the same person.  That seems to be the only source for a supposed consulship in 112, as well.  It seems that Anriz concluded that the Titus Sextius Lateranus who was consul in 154 was the son, not of T. Sextius Lateranus, consul in 112, but of an L. Volusius Torquatus Vestinus, perhaps misunderstanding Sextius' nomenclature, and that this "Vestinus" must have been the consul of 112.


 * It's true that in some cases the last names in a polyonymous Roman nomenclature are the ones inherited from the father, but in this instance reliable sources indicate that the opposite was the case. Lateranus, the consul of 154, was probably descended from a Lucius Volusius Torquatus; and could perhaps be the grandson of the one at PIR, vol. III, p. 487, although in this case Vestinus seems to come from somewhere else.  This article creates a phantom consul out of a misinterpretation of Rüpke, IMO.


 * However, there does seem to have been a Lucius Volusius Torquatus, who was the son of Saturninus, the consul of 87, and who married Licinia Cornelia. I would strike the cognomen Vestinus as it isn't indicated for him in any known source, and any reference to a consulship in 112, since the consul referred to was clearly a different person.  Now, as the combination "Lucius Volusius Torquatus Vestinus" is only known to occur in the name of T. Sextius Lateranus, the consul of 154, I think that this title should redirect there; but the parts of this article that aren't clearly erroneous should be moved to "Lucius Volusius Torquatus", as such a person did exist, and he seems to be the only individual with that name.  P Aculeius (talk) 13:48, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: More time to sort this out

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 05:20, 13 April 2017 (UTC) @(P Aculeius) "On 13 January 87, C.Calpurnius Piso Crassus Frugi Licinianus (PIR2 C 259) became suffect consul, replacing Domitian and holding the post with another patrician, L.Volusius Saturninus, who may well have been married to Calpurnius’s cousin, Licinia Cornelia." Brian Jones' The Emperor Domitian is available online in its entirety. 84.73.134.206 (talk) 08:06, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment There was also a Lucius Vestinus, warmly mentioned in Claudius Oratio: "Here is this splendid and powerful colony of Vienna [modern Vienne in southern of France]; is it so long since it sent to us senators? From that colony comes Lucius Vestinus, one of the glories of the equestrian order, my personal friend, whom I keep close to myself for the management of my private affairs. Let his sons be suffered---I pray you--- to become priests of the lowest rank, while waiting until, with the lapse of years, they can follow the advancement of their dignity".. He went on to become "praefectus Aegypti" and has a nice article in German WP. His son Marcus Iulius Vestinus Atticus was consul in 65. 84.73.134.206 (talk) 09:21, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Those are some interesting resources (and I look forward to reading the Domitian book), but they don't shed any new light on this discussion. We already know that there was a Lucius Volusius Saturninus who was consul in 87, and that he had a son named Lucius Volusius Torquatus.  But we also know that the particular combination "Lucius Volusius Torquatus Vestinus" appears in only one place: the nomenclature of the consul of 154, whose father Titus Sextius Lateranus was consul in 112.  None of the sources cited in the article state that there was a consul in 112 named Lucius Volusius Torquatus Vestinus; none of the traditional sources for identifying consuls name such a person; he is not attested in any historian, any encyclopedia of antiquity, in any treatise, or in any known inscriptions.


 * Quite simply this is a case of the article's original author conflating different people. He or some unidentified source he used (but did not cite) knew that the consul whose name ended in "Lucius Volusius Torquatus Vestinus" was the son or grandson of someone who was consul in 112, and that he was named after said consul.  But he did not realize that the consul in question was Titus Sextius Lateranus, and not someone named "Lucius Volusius Torquatus Vestinus", who as far as can be determined did not exist.  The most that we can say is that Lucius Volusius Torquatus (sans Vestinus) was a real person and likely to have been an ancestor, perhaps the maternal grandfather, of the consul of 154, but there is no evidence whatever that he was consul in 112, and no reason to believe that the assertion that he was is anything other than confusion with Titus Sextius Lateranus, who is known to have been both consul in 112 and the father of the consul of 154.  This falls in the category of "mistake", assuming good faith on the part of the editor in question; and there isn't any likelihood of new evidence suddenly coming to light on this issue.  P Aculeius (talk) 13:50, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You're right. I was just wondering where the cognomen Vestinus may come from. Anyways, I just found something else that might be directly relevant: an epigraphic mention of L(ucius) Vol[usius Torquatus?] Vestinus. The inscription, whose original is lost, is analysed by William Seston in this article in French (p.111). His reconstruction differs from the previous one (HD). He hesitates between L. Vol[cacius Torquatus?] and L. Vol[usius Saturninus]. Torquatus and Volusius are just conjectures. There is also a discrepancy between the two versions of the inscription: L in the HD record vs. LUC in Seston. So, probably no Torquatus and no Volusius, possibly no Lucius, Titus Sextius Lateranus is here, but whether Vestinus is one of his cognomina or someone else ain't clear to me. 84.73.134.206 (talk) 16:11, 13 April 2017 (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.