Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ulpius Crinitus

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 merge to Aurelian. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 04:53, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ulpius Crinitus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Deletion proposed as I don't think this can meet WP:NOTABILITY if the existence of the subject is highly dubious and this is the main content of the article. Zakhx150 (talk) 20:35, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:53, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Aurelian. Johnbod (talk) 01:45, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no reason to have an article on a subject whose very existence is doubted without deep sourcing to show that it is a significant subject even if not real.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:59, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Aurelian; not enough to merit a standalone article. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:14, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Aurelian. Some useful cites for one attempt to provide a noble background. 24.151.50.175 (talk) 19:12, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to AurelianGizzyCatBella🍁 04:17, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- I think the nom has been spooked by the statements doubting his existence. That the doubt is quoted by the writer in ref1, who proceeds to talk about him as a real person. He does not say why others expressed doubt. Ref4 quotes a number of mentions of him in classical authors, which point to him being a real person. I can see that there might be doubt as to the veracity of some of the information about him, but that is a matter of historical interpretation. I must oppose merging him to Aurelian, as the article on that emperor is of appropriate length and would be unbalanced by adding material on his alleged adoptive father. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:20, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Note following @Peterkingiron:'s comment. The link on ref 4 is to a section of the Historia Augusta which is, frankly, problematic. It also wishes to compare this to a text called Firm 3.4. As a classicist I have absolutely no idea what text that is actually referring to - the standard abbreviations used in Classics (here) doesn't list a Firm, but a Firm. Mat, which is a 4th century astrological text by Julius Firmicus Maternus. The footnote 37 referenced in the actual translation here cited itself offers little support for Crinitus: "Mentioned also in c. xxxviii.2‑3, but otherwise unknown. It is probably true that under Valerian Aurelian was engaged in the defence of Thrace against the Goths, but the episode as developed in the following chapters, with the account of Valerian's audience at Constantinople, the adoption of Aurelian and his appointment to the consulship, all embellished with (p213)fabricated "documents," must be considered an invention of the author's." Also I offer a general agreement to oppose the merger with Aurelian as this would be tangential to that article at best. Zakhx150 (talk) 09:25, 8 July 2020 (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.