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 no consensus to delete outright. Beyond that, there's no real agreement on whether to redirect, merge, or keep as is, but that can be worked out on the talk page. – Joe (talk) 16:28, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tarquinia (mother of Lucius Brutus)

[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Tarquinia (mother of Lucius Brutus) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article fails WP:BASIC and WP:NOTGENEALOGY. The subject is mentioned once in passing in one single primary source, and I can find no secondary sources offering any commentary. Avilich (talk) 12:59, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Avilich (talk) 12:59, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Except no histories have survived, her name is only even known because that's the royal family's name, and she doesn't play an active role in any event. Does she really appear 'in numerous works' or are you making stuff up? Avilich (talk) 13:52, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why would he be making stuff up exactly? There are probably hundreds of plays, paintings and novels based on the overthrow of the Roman monarchy, not hard to believe that she would have a role in some of them. Why do you have to be rude to other editors that don't agree with you all the time?★Trekker (talk) 08:11, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Because a wp:before already reveals that no such coverage exists, and because this isn't the first time I see someone inventing sources or page numbers in an AfD. Avilich (talk) 14:21, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As an example, the subject appears briefly in Robert Graves' King Jesus. As Graves' work is the subject of extensive scholarship and is based on history, readers might well want to know more about the historical figures that he mentions. Their names should therefore not be redlinks. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:20, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ignoring for a moment that it's a passing mention with no coverage like any other, there is no evidence that Tarquinia (mother of Lucius Brutus) (exactly like that) is a plausible search term (many/most titles with parenthetical qualifiers aren't), which is the requirement for a redirect. Your argument may be applicable for mentioning the character in a dab page without either a redlink or a blue link. But a passing mention in a random novel has nothing to do with establishing notability or whether a redirection is adequate. Avilich (talk) 16:40, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Any history that states that Brutus was the king's nephew would be a valid source for Tarquinia's existence, since his mother would have to have been the king's sister (otherwise he would have been a Tarquinius). And passing as the mention may be, a classicist refers to the works of Robert Graves as "random novels" at his own peril—but I digress. I'm not arguing—and neither is Andrew Davidson—that Tarquinia is necessarily notable enough to justify a stand-alone article. Merging into the other articles concerned involves nothing more than noting her existence, or anything else worth knowing about her—potentially including whatever Robert Graves says about her—with appropriate citations, in the articles about Tarquin the Proud, Brutus, the Tarquinia gens, and perhaps one or two others (not necessarily all of the content or sources in each one—a single source may be sufficient for her existence, but all of them might appear under her entry in "Tarquinia gens"). Keeping the current title as a redirect seems prudent precisely because it is a plausible search target, whether or not we conclude that the subject is sufficiently notable to merit a stand-alone article. P Aculeius (talk) 18:50, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see what makes it implausible. If you mean, "what are the odds that someone will type this exact phrase without any idea whether such an article or redirect exists", then it is at best improbable, but hardly implausible, which means that nobody would be expected to come up with the phrase, rather than "people looking for the topic are likely to search using a different formulation". There are indeed several possible titles that would logically point to this subject. But someone searching for "Tarquinia" would probably find this title in the search window before typing further, or by guessing there might be some parenthetical disambiguation—and by clicking on the proffered link, they would arrive at whichever article contains the most useful information (based on the discussion, probably either "Tarquinia gens" or "Lucius Junius Brutus"). So it would still be a useful redirect, since its appearance when searching under the subject's name would help readers locate whatever information we have. Otherwise, they might guess between several possible articles, and potentially choose one with less information, not knowing that a fuller discussion is in another article. That's the argument for keeping this as a redirect, wherever the content is merged to. P Aculeius (talk) 03:36, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
She should probably be mentioned in the three articles identified above, since she was Tarquin's sister, Brutus' mother, and a member of the Tarquinia gens. However, Livy alone is probably the only source it's necessary to cite to, if the only historical material is the assertion that she existed in the aforesaid relationships. Under her entry in "Tarquinia gens", any other details—such as whatever Robert Graves says of her in his novel—can probably be mentioned, together with citations to other sources supporting her existence. Entries there are limited to two or three lines, but it sounds as though it should be possible to summarize all of the relevant facts in two or three short sentences. P Aculeius (talk) 17:40, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Again, Graves says nothing at all, it's just the usual filler "Brutus, son of Tarquinia" when saying how he's related to the King. Avilich (talk) 19:01, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Unnecessary to say "again" when this is the first time you've said something. You can't remind someone of a fact that hasn't previously been mentioned, as though they should have been aware of it the whole time. P Aculeius (talk) 19:59, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's a straw man argument. Nobody has said that "there must be sources" that nobody has identified; there are sources, and they are well-known and reliable. Notability is only at issue insofar as the only facts that we have about the subject are her relationships to notable persons; but the correct procedure in a case such as this is merger into articles where whatever materials there are may be adequately documented. It is beyond dispute that the subject can and should be mentioned in those articles; there is no argument whatever for erasing all mention of the subject from the encyclopedia.
As a practical matter, since the subject is already mentioned in some of those articles, the only differences between merger and deletion are 1) double-checking to make sure that all of the relevant details are moved to the appropriate places, and 2) changing the current title as a redirect to the most appropriate of those articles, so that people who search for information on this subject can still find it, and so that the page history is preserved. These are not insignificant or unimportant steps, but they take very little time and effort in a case such as this. Let's not muddy the field by ignoring them, just because skipping the proper procedures might save five minutes and 100 Kb. P Aculeius (talk) 02:21, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To quote from above: There are probably hundreds of plays, paintings and novels based on the overthrow of the Roman monarchy, not hard to believe that she would have a role in some of them. This article is three sentences. A quick search of Tarquin the Elder, the Proud and Brutus' articles show that the scant information in this article is already given there. The idea of someone searching specifically "Tarquinia (mother of Lucius Brutus)" rather than "Tarquinia" is pretty unlikely and I'm not sure worth spilling any pixels over so I'll stop here.Vladimir.copic (talk) 03:45, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not unlikely at all if you've read any early Roman history. "Tarquinia" without disambiguation is the modern name of the ancient Etruscan city of Tarquinii; all daughters of any male member of the Tarquinia gens would have been named "Tarquinia", and according to most sources the wife of Servius Tullius (the sixth king of Rome) was a daughter of Tarquin the Elder, who would also have been named "Tarquinia". Readers searching for more information might reasonably guess that any of these would be found under an article beginning with "Tarquinia"; when using the search window the first ten options beginning with that title appear, and only the parenthetical disambiguation makes it possible for a reader to tell which of the possible topics to visit (as it happens there are currently two formulations for the subject of this article, but both are plausible). P Aculeius (talk) 12:10, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@4meter4: uuh, merge what exactly? This is an unsourced permastub, this shouldn't be more complicated than a simple 'keep, notable' or 'delete, not notable'--yet I keep seeing people, includig you, throwing around unnecessary complicators such as the merger of nonexistent content, false assertions of her being a 'queen mother', and suggestions of article creation (for which this isn't the venue). Avilich (talk) 00:49, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please calm down. Your tone is becoming uncivil. In response, some of the content on Tarquinia is not so overtly stated in the article on her son. The content in the article is easily sourced to a host of references in a google books search (which you would know if you did a WP:BEFORE); hence why a merge and redirect are fine. Just because the stub is unsourced doesn't mean its content isn't easily verified. Lastly, a dab page suggestion strengthens the argument for deletion/merge because there is a viable alternative to some of the problems highlighted in the keep arguments. As such, the suggestion was of use to this conversation in building consensus. Best. 4meter4 (talk) 01:02, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was nothing wrong with the suggestions that 4meter4 made. He made no indication of her being queen mother, that was another commenter above, and left a helpful suggestion of how we could better clarify a topic with many same/similar names. While there is no mergeable content left, as both her motherhood and her relation to the Tarquins are both included in Lucius Junius Brutus, there is no need for you to always take things so personally and aggressively, Avilich. This is a recurring pattern of behavior with you and I am quite frankly sick of your hostility. Curbon7 (talk) 03:19, 24 September 2021 (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.
More