Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leonides of Elis

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 Characters of the Deipnosophistae. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:10, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Leonides of Elis

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

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

This stub is based on one passage in Athenaeus' Deipnosophistae, a primary source. The two standard works (New Pauly and Oxford Classical Dictionary) don't have entries on this subject. Of course, Wikipedia is not a paper book but we're also not a directory of people mentioned in classical literature. I have not found significant secondary coverage, so WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO are not met. Modussiccandi (talk) 11:01, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per the discussion below, I now think that the article should be merged with Characters of the Deipnosophistae. Modussiccandi (talk) 11:24, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 11:01, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 11:01, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 11:01, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 11:01, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The creator has since added two secondary sources, whose merit I believe to be the following: the first (p. 44 in this one) is very brief and reveals no biographical detail, instead the source says that most of of the subject's contributions are "entirely unmemorable". The other source is a general reference to this book. I've looked for the subject in the index, where his name should have been between "law" and "letters" on p. 613. Since existence does still not equal notability, I'd say that the subject is non-notable. Perhaps, a redirect to Deipnosophistae might work as well. Modussiccandi (talk) 13:39, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge The paper in Acta Classica is quite scholarly and entertaining and demonstrates the potential of the topic. As diners might say, waste not, want not. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:18, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew Davidson: I agree that there is potential for a merge here, though I find it difficult to subscribe to the assertion that the section in the Acta Classica article demonstrates potential. To my mind, the section shows that the subject is merely a minor interlocutor mentioned on a few occasions. I'd compare him to Todd Flanders from The Simpsons, who does not have a stand-alone article. What would you say about the following solution: one could group this and similar subjects into an overview article, e.g. Characters of the Deipnosophistae? Modussiccandi (talk) 19:36, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. The point is that we should be constructive rather than destructive. See The Web of Athenaeus for a book which develops this theme. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:45, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen that the editor has had other articles of this kind moved to draft. I'll ping Digitalphilologist, perhaps they agree that an overview article could be useful to keep the content of these pages in the mainspace. Modussiccandi (talk) 19:54, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thanks for this discussion. I agree on creating an overview article for Characters of the Deipnosophistae. I have been trying to create single entries for each Deipnosophist, but I agree that for most of them we have very few sources and a collective article makes more sense (pointing also to other resources like https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/deipnosophist). The only thing is that I would be nice to have separate entries in Wikidata for each character in Athenaeus. Digitalphilologist (talk) 07:25, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Digitalphilologist, for taking part in this discussion. Since we all broadly agree on the course of action, I think you should just start the Characters of the Deipnosophistae article and add some of the content you've written on the individual interlocutors. I'll then change my vote to merge/redirect and, once this discussion closes, Leonides of Elis will be redirected/merged to said article. Now, about Wikidata: I think it's possible to create entries directly from the Wikidata main page; there's a link saying "Create a new Item" in the left-hand sidebar. Modussiccandi (talk) 10:35, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Modussiccandi, I have created the page Characters of the Deipnosophistae Digitalphilologist (talk) 11:03, 1 March 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.