Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marcus Appuleius


 * 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 Speedy keep. (non-admin closure) Automatic  Strikeout  23:13, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Marcus Appuleius

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article does not satisfy notability criteria, WP:BIO Gsingh (talk) 21:51, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Seriously? A consul of the early Roman Empire does not meet the notability criteria? Why not nominate his colleague in the consulship Publius Silius Nerva for deletion as well while you're at it? I would suggest that he does meet the notability criteria. Oatley2112 (talk) 22:00, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: According to the article, he did not do anything notable, and is believed to have died shortly after attaining the position of consul. Gsingh (talk) 22:04, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * He doesn't need to have done anything notable; arguably a lot of politicans haven't! See below for a good keep reason, which is the reason I'm also voting Keep. Lukeno94 (talk) 22:13, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep per the basic criteria under WP:POLITICIAN, which considers as automatically notable Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature. Appuleius was a Roman consul, the highest elected office in ancient Rome, during the critical transition from the Republic to the Empire, as well as a Roman senator. I hope Gsingh doesn't intend to keep us busy by going through the List of Roman consuls and having us defend them one by one. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:10, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. Providing information about high-ranking members of major governments, of which the Roman consuls certainly qualify, is inherently encyclopedic.  And that's what we're here for.  If the best we could say, given 2000 years of intervening history is, "He was elected, assumed the office, and at some point later, died," then that's still good enough (and we actually do say a little more than that, to be fair).  Plus, of course, as noted above, our guidelines say that we should do exactly that. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:37, 9 November 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.