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, nomination was not intended to result in deletion. Discussions about what to do with the significant number of stubby Ancient Roman personnages might be a topic for a Wikiproject? Non-admin closure. Serpent's Choice 19:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Attius Insteius Tertullus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

I'm nominating this not so much I think it should be deleted, but as a way to encourage people to think about an issue this article is only a first example of: articles where there is little hope, as current knowledge stands, that it will ever grow much beyond this brief account.

I won't make any argument about verifiability -- the The Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire not only is a reliable source, it is an excellent source. If it states Tertullus existed, then he existed. However, I think the existence of this article does introduce -- but in a new way -- the old, much discredited concept of notability. In the final analysis, this is an orphan article, & probably will never be linked to; all this person truly is known for is a single inscription erected to him in southern Italy, which records some fragments of his life. Are we all comfortable with the creation of thousands of brief articles like this, destined to float forever in that twilight world of stubs, ignored by all except a vandal & whoever happens to discover this vandalism? Or should we draw a line here, & encourage people who write articles like this one to instead merge the content into the relevant article -- unless it can be shown that there is good reason to havea separate article about this person? I'm looking for a discussion here, not a chorus of "I agree, keep/delete". -- llywrch 04:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I don't know anything about this article, but Wikipedia shouldn't be disrupted to make a point. This isn't a valid way of trying to get this message across, regardless of whether such a discussion should be begun. Nyttend 04:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: There are many people from Antiquity and the Middle Ages who may be known only from a single inscription (how about Narmer - is there more than one?) or a single mention in some document but who still clearly had positions that presumably made them important in their own days. The same thing is very likely true for many more recent individuals from cultures without a written tradition, where the only contemporaneous written sources mentioning the notables of a certain period may come from the notes of European travelers, missionaries or traders. Despite the lack of available sources, I think people like that should be included somewhere. In some cases, it may make more sense to do so in the form of a couple of lines in a list or combined in some article on a larger topic ("Early kings of X") rather than in individual biographical articles, but I still think they should be included. Until such a merger into a larger topic is performed, I see no reason not to keep this as it is. Pharamond 05:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. He satisfies WP:BIO. A Roman senator and other notable offices to boot. Clarityfiend 05:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as article satisfies WP:BIO, WP:N and WP:RS. As for your other point: I'm looking for a discussion here, not a chorus of "I agree, keep/delete". Sorry pal, this is the Articles for Deletion page, not somewhere to debate unrelated policy issues. This is not the place--or the manner--in which to address your concerns. Ford MF 06:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The nominator admits that this article clearly meets Wikipedia guidelines, as the subject is notable and well sourced, so this nomination appears to be a clear abuse of the AfD procedure. As the nominator seeks opinions about this then here's mine, this is an entirely ridiculous nomination and shouldn't be repeated and the discussion he seeks is pointless and unwelcome here. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia unlimited by the constraints of paper so arguing that more obscure items should be deleted or merged en mass is as wrong headed as can be. It's also a slap in the face to the hard working people who create these perfectly reasonable articles in the first place. Nick mallory 07:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep as admitted by the nominator. Should be warned about violating WP:POINT, and shouldn't waste our time.  :-) /Blaxthos 16:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.