Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polemon Eupator


 * 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. The argument for deletion - that the existence of this person is not verifiable - has not been substantially been contested here. Nobody pointed to specific sources that would verify his existence. That being the case, the core policy WP:V mandates the deletion of unverifiable content.  Sandstein  10:05, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Polemon Eupator

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

I prodded this with the following rationale: "Fails WP:BASIC and possibly WP:V. Mentioned apparently by only a single source here, which does not even indicate with full certainty the subject's existence. Some assertions of the article are simply not corroborated by the sources, and some of the content appears to be WP:OR. The rest is irrelevant genealogical trivia. Subject did not reign, no accomplishments are known, and I can find nothing that can shore up this article."

And this was deprodded by with no rationale other than that there "seem to be several sources", even though I explicitly indicated that I looked at the sources, and that their combined statement does not support claims of verifiability or notability made in the article.

It may be added that this "Polemon Eupator" seems to have been invented or mistakenly conceived by the article creator based on his own interpretation of a damaged inscription (WP:OR) which a single source here has transcribed. None of the other sources cited so much as mention the man, and the only one that does doesn't identify the subject conclusively. Avilich (talk) 21:03, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Avilich (talk) 21:03, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete, unverifiable, may be a bad mistake for Ptolemy Eupator perhaps? No idea why this was deprodded. Fram (talk) 21:34, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The first name (not the second) is probably the single verifiable fact in the article, so it's probably not a simple spelling confusion. The creator found the brief speculation of a source and magnified it well beyond the limits of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, reporting an unverifiable genealogical link and giving his own guess on how the subject's life went on ("He was raised in his parent’s realm", and so on). Avilich (talk) 22:01, 29 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:31, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. Sadly it increasingly appears that some editors do not know the difference between when to use a prod and when to use an AfD. To enlighten them, a prod should only be used for blatant unencyclopaedic rubbish. An AfD should be used for anything else. Simply thinking an article is non-notable is not a good reason to prod instead of AfD. I would also remind editors that any editor can deprod an article for any reason or none. Something else that seems to be unclear to some. -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:24, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * That you "can" do something doesn´t mean it is a good idea of course... Fram (talk) 07:28, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * And more worryingly, your patronizing comment about prodding editors and "blatant unencyclopedic rubbish" has absolutely no basis in policy and doesn´t reflect WP:PROD at all. Such incorrect "enlightenment" from an admin to justify their time-wasting is in poor form. Fram (talk) 07:37, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Given your and Avilich's comments above and the comments on my talkpage, I don't think it's me who's the patronising one! I deprodded for very good reasons, as I am perfectly entitled to do. It is obvious that only unecyclopaedic articles could possibly be uncontroversially deleted, which is what prodding is specifically for (ergo, my comment was accurate!). Ths article and the others prodded by Avilich are not unencyclopaedic (since princes are obviously not). -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:23, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge to his father. This is clearly a person of whom we know little, perhaps nothing beyond his mere existence, which does not provide the basis for a full article.  His father Polemon II of Pontus was a king, but Nero persuaded him to surrender the kingdom, meaning that no son succeeded him.  On the other hand, I detected a gap in WP's coverage of Kingdom of Pontus covering the period when it had become a client kingdom within the province of Bithynia and Pontus, which is supposed to be a main article on it, but fails to cover the client kingdom properly.  We have biographies of successive kings and List of kings of Pontus.  Peterkingiron (talk) 12:49, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * And once again you cast a vote without reading the nomination. We don't know that he is in fact the King's son, or that this is even his full name (the idea that we know for certain is the article creator's OR/SYNTH). Avilich (talk) 13:19, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   09:53, 7 January 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Curbon7 (talk) 03:19, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Can someone creating, deprodding, wanting to merge... this article actually produce a single reliable source even mentioning Polemon Eupator? I haven´t found a single one in e.g. Google books, which is very unlikely for this kind of subject. Fram (talk) 16:08, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Presumably this is source 1, the source for the name? It includes many Polemons, and many Eupators, but never as a combination it seems. Anyone has more luck finding this name? Fram (talk) 16:16, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * since you actually appear committed to understanding the problem (unlike others), the source is this. Basically there is a damaged inscription which gives some of the said names in fragmentary and incomplete form, and the source (and those it in turn cites within) makes it clear that any identification is a matter of conjecture (which the creator of this article felt at liberty to do). You're right that the name combination "Polemon Eupator" doesn't exist. If you're interested, there's another similar AfD here, which I forgot to bundle with this one. Avilich (talk) 17:19, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * What's the point of relisting this if something as basic as WP:V isn't met and nobody wants to keep? Avilich (talk) 17:43, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 'Merge  there's seems to be enough information to mention in the article and someone might want to look for the name. Thee is however no basis for arguing about prods. Anyone may place a prod, anyone may remove it. If someone thinks what's done was wrong, this is the placeto resolve the issue.  DGG ( talk ) 05:38, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Bloody hell DGG, merge what based on what sources? We can't even verify the "name"! What's the point of having a discussion where some people do the legwork and look at the sources (in the article and elsewhere) if people then just !vote to merge because there "seems" to be enough without even an indication that they looked at any of the sources or any of the comments about these sources here. What an utter waste of time and effort. Fram (talk) 07:29, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete - there is no there there. Unclear this even reflects reality, and insufficient quality sourcing to justify adding the information elsewhere. Agricolae (talk) 20:57, 20 January 2022 (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.