Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marcus Ambivulus


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:51, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Marcus Ambivulus

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No indication of noteability through third party sources. There's not going to be any either, because he's been dead for centuries. Should be merged to some kind of list. Jtrainor (talk) 23:07, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't understand how a governor of Judaea fails notability criteria.  Notability (people) provides general guidelines for notability, including "[p]oliticians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office...."  There may not be much known about Ambivulus, but there's enough to support a stub, and one could certainly add more explaining his significance and place in history.  Even though only one original source is cited now (Josephus) and one recent book based entirely on it, it's entirely possible that Ambivulus is mentioned in other sources, perhaps with additional information.  So we're not dealing with a non-notable subject, and there's no need to delete a historical stub with the potential to be expanded.
 * The reason for deletion given here seems to be that there's no third-party source. That isn't one of the criteria for deletion.  If all persons known only from historical sources such as Josephus (or Livy, or Valerius Maximus) were deleted, we'd be deleting hundreds of articles about persons from classical antiquity.  I don't see how that would make any sense.  P Aculeius (talk) 03:50, 30 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep The nomination proposes merger not deletion. And the nomination fails to explain how merger would improve matters. Warden (talk) 07:08, 30 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep As prefect/procurator of Judea and Samaria, he complies with the guidelines for notability. In addition, while there may not be any further details of his life or career at the moment, that is not to say that an inscription will not come to light at some point, outlining his career in further detail. Oatley2112 (talk) 10:11, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, obviously, per WP:POLITICIAN. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:09, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't know where the nominator gets the idea that there are no third-party sources; even a cursory search of Google Books indicates otherwise. And I'm pretty sure we have lots of articles on people who have been dead for centuries, so I fail to see how that's a criterion for deletion. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:33, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. A Google books search shows plenty of reference to him, either under this name or as "Marcus Ambibulus"; it isn't SYNTH to take the two as the same, since the years of Roman procuratorship match. The mentions aren't in-depth but they establish notability and are encyclopedic. The merger is also not tenable for the same reasons a deletion isn't. Churn and change (talk)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:52, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:52, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. "No indication of noteability through third party sources. There's not going to be any either, because he's been dead for centuries" has got to be one of the silliest things I've read during my time on Wikipedia. Provincial governors are most definitely notable by virtue of their office. They don't have to have someone jumping up and down shouting "he's notable"! -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:19, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Per all the above. And seriously? Intothatdarkness 15:18, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Obvious keep -- I expect it will never be more than a short article, but we should certainly have it. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:00, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep I added annother ref. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:13, 5 October 2012 (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.