Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amafanius

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 Keep. --- Glen 01:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Amafanius

About 127 hits on google, mostly just in lists, there's little else verifiable about this dude, this is the outcome of history: the best arguers write it. He's in one category, but so little is sourced or linked--it just seems like this history stub is not a relevant one for wikipedia. -Kmaguir1 03:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep, 127 Ghits isn't much for someone with a Myspace page, but for someone dead > 2000 years? Any writer named by Cicero reaches the bar, IFAIAC --- Deville (Talk) 04:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep Google isn't really an appropriate criterion for Roman philosophers. He gets mentioned in Cicero and Montaigne - not bad for an old dude! Dlyons493 Talk 04:08, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
    • But mentioned in Cicero only to reject categorically his system...-Kmaguir1 04:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. The argument that anyone mentioned by Cicero deserves an article doesn't sway me. wikipediatrix 04:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Wow, a Roman writer. I'm so used to seeing minor characters in Codename:Kids Next Door and whatnot that this makes head spin. Let's keep a few Roman writers around with the Pokeman characters and such. Herostratus 05:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
    • But wait a second, the Pokemon characters, a lot is known about them. Here, Amafanius is as much of a victim of history as anything--that's not our fault. And again, there is no sourcing that says we have any of his works, that I've read--so we have, essentially, a name. And that's just it--nothing we can attribute to the name, not his works, not his life characterized in other works, nothing. Mention in Cicero and Montaigne is not sufficient--this is a classic case of the difference between use and mention--in fact, Cicero draws this distinction clearly in that he mentions Amafanius, about whom we apparently know nothing, either biographically, or historically (if we do, it's not on the net, and hasn't been sourced outside of it), but again, Cicero doesn't want to do Amafanius' thing--according to the article itself, the mention in Cicero is to briefly say what Cicero does NOT want to do, and thus, he doesn't USE him. While he may have been someone, all we know about him is that he existed and Cicero and Montaigne mentioned him, Cicero not agreeing with him. That does not notability make. What this is essentially is list-pushing; it's trying to accompile a list when not all members of the list are notable. History is what makes Amafanius not notable, not us, and not him. That's the judgment you should make--that we can't control history, and also, we should avoid considerations that Roman philosophers are somehow more significant than Pokemon characters. Significance is not a test--verifiability, notability, these are tests, and what we have for history of Amafanius flunks both.-Kmaguir1 07:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
      • For Cicero's evaluation of Amafanius's importance see the book Cicero’s Social and Political Thought by Neal Wood. Dlyons493 Talk 11:40, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per failing WP:BIO. I see no need to invent new policy or guidelines when the existing ones work. Subject lacks multiple non-trivial articles by third parties, no evidence of lasting contribution to his field (and we have historical hindsight to show this), no awards, his works haven't been adopted for movies or as textbooks. I am amused that someone is impressed by the fact he's a Roman writer. Yeah, wow, but that's not WP:NOT or WP:BIO. Tychocat 10:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep all classical authors, even those only mentioned by others. If Cicero considered him significant enough to censure him, and others have mentioned him while citing or discussing Cicero, I think that is enough. Everything in Smith's Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology should be included in Wikipedia. The number of Google web hits is a irrelevant deletion argument for anything but modern, Western culture, sports etc. – I don't know how many times this needs to be pointed out – and he gets 433 hits on Google Books. up+l+and 11:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep There are historical reasons why Epicureans don't get as many google hits as follows of Plato (and not just that the bloggers aren't that into them this year) and that not as much is generally known about them. The fact that some ancient authors aren't as "notable" as others is an outcome of centuries of debate, with some thinkers being pushed forward and others left behind, all of which was heavily influenced by Christianity. That doesn't mean they weren't influential to their contemporaries. A classical Roman scholar, whose name and a bit of bio has survived the centuries is notable, even if only for that. I don't believe that WP:BIO exists to dumb down wikipedia, but rather to prevent folks from writing about themselves, their neighbors or their brother's band. I essentially agree with Kmaguir1's statement to the effect that the best arguers write history, but I don't like the implications. Should we just start purging wikipedia of all women and non-western men before the 19th century right now? Substantially less is verifiable via our methods about many of them as well. Dina 13:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
    • WP:BIO also ensures that Wikipedia does not become a genealogical database of dead people. Historical figures that have been the subjects of multiple non-trivial published works independent of those figures themselves, i.e. that have been written about by historians, satisfy the WP:BIO criteria. Uncle G 18:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
"Subject" is disengenous. Billy Graham's "My Life" has one subject, a principal subject. To be a subject here indicates mention, and not use, as I explained above, and that mention is brief, and not notable. In fact, I don't see anything on the page, nor was I able to find much, about what historians have written about him. Cicero and Montaigne have mentioned him, not used him. That doesn't make him notable. If George W. Bush mentions a yu-gi-oh price guide, does that fact weigh in determining its notability? No. Powerful people, notable philosophers, mentioning, as opposed to using, is a weaker notability standard.-Kmaguir1 21:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I know of nothing in WP:BIO that makes an exception for the "If he's ancient, he must be notable" argument. wikipediatrix 14:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Well, I'd argue that perhaps there should be. There is one exception quoted at the top of the guideline ie. This is not intended to be an exclusionary list; just because someone doesn't fall into one of these categories doesn't mean an article on the person should automatically be deleted. I believe a lot of the editors are making the argument here that ancient scholars are an example of that more general exception. I think it's worth noting that most of the criteria on WP:BIO would not really apply to any Presocratic scholar. The only one that does is The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field. "widely recognized" is what's at issue here and the discussion seems to me to be whether any ancient scholar other than the big names could fulfill that criterion. Thales, Anaximander and Anaximenes aren't exactly household names either -- and we don't even know when Thales lived, and Anaximander's thought survives only in fragments and references in other people's work . However if you stop by at the first lecture of any intro western philosophy class, you'll be hearing as much about them as it's possible to know. It's specialist knowledge and infinitely encyclopedic in my view. Dina 14:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Just to clarify my point on reread, I'm not suggesting that Epicureans were Presocratic (cause they weren't) but using the Presocratics as an example of ancient writers about which very little can ever be known. Anaximander just came to mind as a good example. Cheers Dina 14:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
But if I want to know about Anaximander or Anaximedes, I can pick up Plato and role with it, or even Heidegger, for that matter. The Presocratics are all eminently notable, without question. Here we have a figure who was mentioned by just one guy, and seems to have little historical significance, like the Presocratics did--you know, the beginning of Western philosophy, all that important stuff. But the Presocratics wouldn't be notable without Socrates, and so forth. So the fact that Cicero names this guy, this isn't an antecedent of importance like the Presocratics. Hundred of other philosophers held these claims, and here's the big problem: it's his membership on a list that gets him onto Wikipedia to again be in a list. Two lists does not a notable bio subject make.-Kmaguir1 21:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep To understand the mindset of the Republican circles in Rome one must understand their repugnance for the new ideas coming from Greece, ideas such as those popularised by Amafanius/Amafinius and Rabirius. They really are the philosophical precursors of the bread and circuses tyrannies of the Caesers. Cicero even claims that Amafinius was the first to write in about Epicureanism in Latin (although he may have been wrong). He may not have appeared on the Simpsons but he is definately notable. JASpencer 14:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Good point. The fact that we know so little about some ancient writers is the result of an historical debate that is, in itself, eminently notable. The very foundations of our way of thinking -- at work in even the way we frame our arguments right here, are the result of these ancient controveries. If that ain't notable, I don't know what is. Dina 15:08, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete It fails criteria for WP:BIO. It does't have any third party commentary, etc. (per Tychocat) Hello32020 16:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep obviously. This writer has an article in an encyclopedic work, Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology, and there's no reason why this information shouldn't be included on Wikipedia. Suppose someone reads Cicero and comes across this name, and wants to find who that is by looking him up on Wikipedia. The current article then would give all information that is available, and Wikipedia has done its duty. If, however, there's nothing at all on Amafanius on Wikipedia, then Wikipedia would simply appear a deficient resource. Even short articles can be important, and I don't think the article as it stand now is a stub. (And by the way, the nominator's argument about few google hits is absolutely out of place when applied to a Roman philosopher.) Ekjon Lok 16:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep Cicero is a third party, as is the Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology. They are both verifiable. Thus, the article's subject more than passes WP:BIO. The Google test - as WP:NOTABILITY points out - can be problematic with historical subjects and in this case is very near moot. Crystallina 16:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep per all above. Cicero's remark is third party commentary. - Smerdis of Tlön 17:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep per Uppland and others. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep: Was he notable? Cicero thought so; even if he only brought him up in order to refute and reject him, that means he must have thought he was worth refuting - you don't do that to people who are non-notable. Obviously it's unfortunate that his work didn't come down to us, but we can say what we do know - that at one point, his philosophy was engaged by one of the greatest orators of Rome. He has third party commentary by reliable sources. That tells us he matters enough to get an entry. --Mnemeson 21:50, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep of course, multiple third-party refs exist as required by WP:BIO, the fact they aren't included in the article is a cleanup issue not an AFD one. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per JASpencer and Uppland. Pia 23:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong KEEP. The fact that this was brought up for proposed deletion but Yu-Gi-Oh (which I never heard of until today) is well-entrenched is a sad indictment of the state of our society and of society's intellectual priorities. —ExplorerCDT 03:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: Might find the time tonight to add to this article and make it worthwhile, as above, this is a cleanup issue, not an AfD matter.—ExplorerCDT 03:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment: It is also a sad indictment of the state of our society and of society's intellectual priorities when people use Google count as the final measure of all and everything. Gabriel Knight 16:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Amafanius seem to be a legitimate subject for a Wikipedia article - it just needs to be written, that's all. BTLizard 09:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. But only if there's more information out there other than "He was mentioned by Cicero". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frenchman113 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment, I expanded the page with details about what Cicero had to say about him. Beyond this, there doesn't seem to be much preserved of him. - Smerdis of Tlön 20:41, 3 September 2006 (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.