Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quintus Caecilius


 * 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. Deleted by Athaenara. (non-admin closure) Spudlace (talk) 06:05, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Quintus Caecilius

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Almost certainly a WP:HOAX, created by a now-banned user. The article itself is practically empty and has no sources. [ The Magistrates of the Roman Republic], a top source on the subject, records nobody of this name who held the office the article claims he held in 316 BC. Avilich (talk) 01:29, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  10:02, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  10:02, 10 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete Unsourced. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:58, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps more than a hoax it is a mistake. A Quintus Caecilius was a tribune of the plebs in 439 BC. Since the founding date of Rome was 753 BC, if the subtraction is made, it gives about the year 316 from the founding of Rome. From there, the imagination makes its way. --Romulanus (talk) 15:37, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Work of my least-favorite editor. The original source provided (which was not Settipani for once) was published by a vanity press in Brazil, thus failing the test for a reliable source. Even if this article was a mistake, the plebeian tribune of 439 BC already has an entry at Caecilia gens; nothing here to save for merging. -- llywrch (talk) 18:37, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete, did not exist. Another creation by GMcupertino. T8612  (talk) 03:20, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect to Lucius Caecilius Metellus Denter.-- His very existence is uncertain.  If llywrch is right and the date is 316 AUC, this article cannot survive.  Furthermore we know nothing of him (except that he may have held an office), which is not enough to make a worthwhile article.  Any article will always be a mere stub because nothing is known or discoverable.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:18, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I think you mean was the one who pointed out the date was 316 AUC. -- llywrch (talk) 17:36, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, that was a clever calling. The year is technically 315, and we still know nothing more about him than a sentence's worth of facts, though. Avilich (talk) 17:43, 11 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment If this person is indeed made up, is there some way to make sure their entries on other Wikimedia projects get deleted as well?★Trekker (talk) 16:55, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The Wikidata item was Q1174086. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 21:14, 12 December 2020 (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.