Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quintus Caecilius Metellus (tribune)


 * 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.  Sandstein  13:26, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Quintus Caecilius Metellus (tribune)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

There's no evidence for the existence of the person which matches the biographical details given in the article. The page was created in 2007 by a now banned user, using an unreliable source which somebody later removed. Avis11 (talk) 01:09, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

EDIT: there is actually a vaguely-sourced bit which was later added by an IP, but the information pertains to the similarly-named Quintus Caecilius Metellus Nepos (consul 57 BC), of which an article already exists. Avis11 (talk) 18:24, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:43, 17 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete as WP:HOAX, seems to be a common name, but no-one of that name seems to exist in that time period. Mztourist (talk) 03:56, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete as WP:HOAX. T8612  (talk) 14:30, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. The situation is more complicated than a hoax. I have written a short explanation & a much longer one for why this article needs to be deleted.The short version: This article is a mess, even without the material copied from the consul of 57 BC. Searching thru Thomas Robert Shannon Broughton's Magistrates of the Roman Republic (vol. 2), I was unable to find any plebeian tribune with the name of Q. Caecilius Metellus. Further, another source gives the filiation for Q. Caecilius Metellus Creticus Silanus as "Q.f.M.n." (son of Quintus, grandson of Marcus), so the claimed parentage in this article is wrong. And if this person existed, were he the son of a notable person & the father of another, notability is not inherited.

There are four claims in this stub of an article: The first claim has been addressed: there is no reliable source for it. The fourth claim is a bit trickier: Appian (B.C. iv.42.173) tells of a Caecilius Metellus who fought under Octavian/Augustus at Actium, who successfully pleaded for the life of his father, who had fought on the other side. However, there are no further solid facts about either person, such as their complete names. This hasn't stopped experts from speculation (e.g. that Caecilius Metellus the Younger from Actium was the same person as a proconsul of Sardinia in AD 6), but these inferences need to be clearly labelled as inferences & speculation, not facts.
 * 1) Q. Metellus (using the short version of his name) is a plebeian tribune
 * 2) Q. Metellus is the son of Q. Metellus Creticus
 * 3) He adopted Q. Metellus Creticus Silanus
 * 4) He participated on Mark Anthony's side in the Battle of Actium.

This period is full of inferences & speculation. Often one secondary source will state A is the son (or brother, or otherwise a relation) of B, but further research will show that this relationship is inferred from something admittedly shaky such as similar names -- or even simple hand-waving. And sometimes the discovery of a new inscription or a papyrus document will upset all of the theories & force us to accept a prevously discarded one.

Ronald Syme in his The Augustan Aristocracy (pp. 190, 253) has a stemma of the children of Q. Metellus Creticus which includes 2 sons -- a Quintus & a Marcus -- which he indicates are hypothetical. (He doesn't provide any information why he thinks these 2 men existed.) Here claim 2 is confirmed; could he be the subject of this article? Maybe. But the rule about notability comes into play, since at most what we can say is that he existed, & notability is not inherited.

This stemma, which relies on a paper T.P. Wiseman published in Latomus in 1965, also shows Creticus's hypothetical son Marcus with a hypothetical son Quintus, who is identified as Creticus Silanus' adoptive father. (Confirming claim 3.) Could this be the subject of the article under discussion? Again, notability is not inherited.

(A warning: yes, the two secondary sources I cited are over thirty years old. But the material they discussed hasn't changed in that time; what I am doing here is relying on their expert experience. And Syme is widely considered a far more intelligent scholar of ancient Rome than most who have come after him. His opinions cannot be discarded simply because he lived so long ago.)


 * Maybe the content of this article is invented out of thin air, or maybe it confuses details from two or more people. At this point, we can't say. To repeat myself, this is a mess & the best solution would be to delete this article & add all theories about the connection between Quintus Caecilius Metellus Creticus & Quintus Caecilius Metellus Creticus Silanus to the existing relevant articles. -- llywrch (talk) 17:57, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it is not a hoax, but since the article mixes elements from several people without source, I don't think it is worth saving. T8612  (talk) 21:00, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It could be a hoax, or not one; its creator is no longer active at Wikipedia, so his motivation cannot be learned. But you & I are agreed it is a mess & should be deleted; the only possible point of debate (as I understand) is whether all verifiable information should be added to the articles on Creticus & Creticus Silanus now or after the article is deleted. -- llywrch (talk) 06:28, 23 October 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.