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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:23, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Heraclius (son of Constantine IV)[edit]

Heraclius (son of Constantine IV) (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)

I don't think every child of an emperor or other royalty should get a separate entry, unless they held particular named offices and have enough to say about them that couldn't be mentioned on their parents' pages. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 10:10, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:13, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:07, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Understand the challenge but when you appear in Gibbons D&F, and the Liber Pontificalis, and your parents (and brother) were the most powerful people of the age, it is a Keep for me. Time is a brutal qualifier of notability. There are hundreds of thousands of valid BLPs in WP who will be ghosts in a thousand years from now. Britishfinance (talk) 16:48, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no indication of any basis for notability. Sentence one - genealogical context; sentence two - notable positions he didn't hold; sentence 3 - passing reference to a lock of his hair. How is that notability? Indeed, the second reference says, Heraclius' existence is only known from the fact that a letter was sent by Constantine to Pope Benedict II (684-85) together with locks of his children's hair. (To save others the work, the first reference is obscured by pointing to a recent reprint of Gibbon, but the text can be found at the bottom of the page here [1], again a simple mention of the 'hair episode'.) That is not independent notability, not then, not now, not a thousand years from now. Agricolae (talk) 17:49, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Prince Andrew has a large WP article based on a similar position in a less notable household. If Heraclius was alive today with the same RS that we use for Prince Andrew's article, he would have a GA WP article. You are confusing GNG-type arguments with individuals whose RS have long gone. Very minor RS exists from that era, even for emperors. The idea that the second of two children, of what would have been one of the most powerful individuals in the world at that time, is not notable for WP is not sound reasoning. Britishfinance (talk) 19:08, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Regarding Prince Andrew, this would be no better than an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument, even if the cases were comparable, which they aren't. If Heraclius were alive today he would certainly be notable, because numerous reliable source would invariably have reported how there was a living man who was 1400 years old, and that would establish his notability. However, he is not alive today, and we don't have the same reliable sources that we have for Andrew. 'All children of people with title X are inherently notable and saying otherwise isn't sound reasoning' is an argument that flies in the face of established policy: WP:NOTINHERITED. Notability on Wikipedia is based on substantial coverage in reliable sources. This person has not received substantial coverage in any sources (actual sources, not hypothetical lost ones). Agricolae (talk) 21:51, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Heraclius would have had greater notability in the world in his time then Prince Andrew or even one of the most viewed articles on WP, Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex, does now. Because of the passage of over 1,500 years, Heraclius' equivalent of Daily Telegraph, Times and Guardian articles are long gone. Byzantine kings were known to kill younger siblings and delete any note of them, to remove any potential competition (which is probably what happened to Heraclius) - E.g. Fratricide by his tyrant brother Justinian II.

Here is the WP article on Ealhmund of Kent, the father of Ecgberht, King of Wessex. There is only a tiny actual reference to Ealhmund confirming his existence, and nothing else. That is the reality of many early ages historical figures. There are whole emperors worthy of WP articles whose only definitive fact-base are passing references in specific historical chronicles. Are we to delete all of these from history because they don't meet the GNG criteria of Prince Andrew? Of course not. Being recorded in both Gibbon's Decline and Fall and the Liber - two of the most important historical records of early ages - means you are notable. However, WP:COMMONSENSE knows that the second of only two male children of the most powerful man on earth at that time is worth recording. Britishfinance (talk) 14:11, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldda, couldda, shouldda. Wikipedia is not based on hypotheticals, let alone the elaborate false-narrative you envision for Heraclius. It is anachronistic to assume that the self-publicity, fawning interest and press spouse-attack pieces that surround the British royal family represents the historical norm - the Constantinople Daily News is not lost, it never existed, and given how secretive the House of Saud is about its members, one cannot assume the British model applies to ancient Byzantium. As to Eahlmund of Kent, this is nothing but another WP:OTHERSTUFF argument - notability is not established by spurious analogy. Receiving passing mention in a source, no matter how important that source, is not one of the criteria for notability. We do record Heraclius: he is listed on his father's page. Nobody is arguing he should be purged entirely from Wikipedia, just that having a single source report his and his brother's hair being sent to the Pope as the sole evidence he existed falls well short of established criteria for notability that underlies the justification for a stand-alone article. Agricolae (talk) 15:15, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, But we only have a single source on Ealhmund of Kent (a single "passing mention" in your words) - so should we delete that article? You use tangential arguments to avoid the core argument (although you now try to label the core argument as a "false-narrative"). You now make WP:PSEUDO claims (in your words) about ancient sources and the House of Saud? Your own arguments disprove your own assertions. Britishfinance (talk) 15:26, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• This discussion is not about Eahlmund of Kent and whether or not his page should be deleted. If you think he is not notable then put forward an AfD, but WP:OTHERSTUFF is applicable - that Wikipedia undoubtedly includes articles on non-notable individuals is not a valid argument to retain any given article on a non-notable individual. (As an aside, you are incorrect about Eahlmund - there are multiple passing mentions in the primary record, in the ASC as King of Kent, in several other ASC entries as father of Ecgberht, in Æthelweard's chronicle, not surprising as it is mostly a translation of the ASC, in the Textus Roffensis, in Asser, in the Historia Brittonum, etc., but that is all beside the point, as it is the degree to which he has received coverage in secondary sources, e.g. modern scholarly writing, that is relevant. For that our article has five cited, many of which give Eahlmund more substantial coverage than what Gibbon wrote regarding Heraclius, most focussed on the question of whether the Eahlmund who was father of Ecgberht is really the same as the Eahlmund who was King of Kent [scholars have generally accepted this], but likewise addressing the veracity of the pedigree attributed to him [opinion is split]. He has been subject to more than passing mention, he has been the direct subject of debate and discussion. Is this enough? Launch the AfD and find out the community consensus, but that is not a relevant question in this discussion of Heraclius.) I am not calling your core argument a false-narrative, unless your core argument is that your personal assumption that Heraclius was probably fratricided is somehow a basis for notability. We don't know anything that happened to him other than that he was born, he had a haircut, and we can presume that he died because he isn't still alive, but we cannot base notability on presumptions of how he died that are entirely baseless. Also, I have not applied WP:PSEUDO to the House of Saud as the record of this discussion clearly shows. If you continue to intentionally distort my arguments, I will begin to doubt your commitment to having a reasoned discussion. Agricolae (talk) 16:19, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete/redirect He could have been notable in his day per Britishfinance's claim, but we simply don't have the sources to verify that, with no information beyond that he existed. Any notability now or then seems merely inherited and his existence can be mentioned in the Constantine IV article. I laugh at your comparison to Prince Andrew; this is not based on what RSes could have existed back then. Reywas92^Talk 23:15, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per historical significance. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 16:16, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Pray tell, what makes him significant? Being lucky enough to have some DNA? Embarrassing that people's standards to have independent articles here are so low. Reywas92^Talk 21:34, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Your tone in every conversation I have had with you has been embarrassing. I'd appreciate civility in your responses. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 06:02, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment here is one of the most viewed articles on WP, Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex, whose entire notability is liked to having "some DNA". Britishfinance (talk) 13:58, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• His notability is linked to the copious amount that has been written about him by reliable secondary sources. Actual sources, not hypothetical ones, that have detailed every aspect of his life. The reason why all those sources have been written about him is indeed because of his parentage (at least originally), but his notability is based on the sources, independent of why they were written. Again, not really a pertinent analogy. WP:PSEUDO really applies very well to Heraclius. It indicates that in such circumstances where a person is only known for a single non-notable event, with no reliable sources that cover the individual themselves as a main or sole focus of coverage and if the person is not the main focus of the relevant coverage, we should not be creating a pseudobiography relating the one event and padded out with 'context', that in circumstances where a person is only known for a single non-notable incident, then "it's very likely that there is no reason to cover that person at all." Agricolae (talk) 14:39, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Agricolae: You keep repeating that "notability is linked to the copious amount that has been written about him by reliable secondary source" which does not apply to ancient historical figures who have very little actual on them. WP is not chronical of The Telegraph-Guardian etc. It does record important historical figures, and the second son of the world's most powerful man in 685 is notable. We don't need Telegraph-Guardian-Financial Times articles for GNG etc. to tell us that. Britishfinance (talk) 14:50, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The second son of a 685 monarch is notable not by default, by analogy, by assumption, or by fiat, but if and only if he has received significant coverage in secondary sources. Full stop. That could be in scholarly articles, biographies, encyclopaedias, or yes, even newspapers, but it has to be significant coverage, not passing reference to a non-notable episode. Agricolae (talk) 15:28, 25 February 2019 (UTC) (by the way, please don't ping me - I have this discussion watchlisted and neither need nor want the notification. Agricolae (talk) 16:19, 25 February 2019 (UTC))[reply]

• Comment. But this is not just a monarch; it was probably the world's most powerful man. An he appears in Gibbons and Liber, two of the most respected scholarly chronicles of the ages. You are arguing against yourself. Do you intend to delete/wipe-out the thousands of ancient history BLPs in WP that rely on a single passing reference for the proof of their existence? Britishfinance (talk) 15:34, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• You have already made these arguments and I have already shown them to be invalid. Constantine was a powerful monarch, not Heraclius, and being born to someone notable does not imbue the child with automatic notability (WP:NOTINHERITED). Mention in a primary source (Liber) is explicitly excluded by policy (WP:BIO) from consideration in evaluating notability. Simply appearing in a secondary source is not the bar for notability, significant coverage is.(WP:BIO again) WP:OTHERSTUFF is among the WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 16:19, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment But you have not. I am using other WP examples to show the flaw in your reasoning. But you ignore that. Continually. On your basis, we can start deleting whole groups of early history BLPs in WP. And yet don't, for very good reason. I don't need to use any WP acronyms to understand that. Britishfinance (talk) 17:04, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I ignore it because it is an OTHERSTUFF argument. 'Some other people are also not notable but they have pages' is not an argument for alternative standards of notability, it is an argument for more AfDs where each can be discussed on their own merits and not collectively. The subject of this page is either notable or is not notable based on the relevant criteria for notability, in this case WP:BIO. The notability of the subjects of other Wikipedia pages can be addressed in their own AfDs but this has no bearing on whether Heraclius satisfies the criteria for notability found in WP:BIO and other Wikipedia policy. Agricolae (talk) 17:39, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment You ignore it because it shows the flaw in your argument. His mother Anastasia (wife of Constantine IV), whom we only know a tiny bit more about than her second son, under your logic, would be next for AfD. Quoting OTHERSTUFF avoids the fact your logic would see thousands of early history WP BLPs of major royal figures deleted (while we keep Prince Andrew-type BLPs). I don't need a WP acronym to know that is flawed logic. Britishfinance (talk) 20:14, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Anastasia is the subject of an entire article in a secondary source, Garland's. That represents a qualitative difference on how the two are treated by this secondary source, Anastasia given specific coverage, Heraclius passing reference. Show us the secondary source that dedicates an article to Heraclius and we will have something to talk about. Again, the distinguishing feature for notability per WP:BIO is how they are treated by secondary sources, not as you suggest, how much we know about the subjects. My 'logic' is that we have a policy on biographical notability for a reason, your overblown red-herring claims of resulting imaginary carnage notwithstanding. The notability of an individual is not in any way affected by the notability (or lack thereof) of any of the thousands of other ancient history individuals who have (or don't have) Wikipedia articles, and nothing is to be gained by you going through them all here, one at a time, as if finding a page on someone even less notable somehow justifies the retention of Heraclius' page in the face of explicit policy to the contrary. (Oh, and as for acronyms, you might want to refresh your memory on what the 'L' in BLP stands for.) Agricolae (talk) 22:00, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Changing my position to Merge -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 06:13, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (Redirect fine too - just the present title "Heraclius (son of Constantine IV)" seems like a silly redirect to Constantine IV). Absent additional sources, the article actually makes it quite clear this figure doesn't pass GNG. We don't know his birth date (so we're speculating on a birth year based on the year of his older brother's birth and his father's death), and all we know of him is that a lock of hair of his was sent to Pope Benedict II. He's already mentioned in his father's bio so not much to merge (the locks of hair - seems like a trivial detail there). Icewhiz (talk) 16:28, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge & redirect to his father. He is a mere footnote to history. If we had substantial sources as to his life, showing what he did (apart from merely existing), he might deserve and article, but often even for royal family members in ancient history, we know nothing and probably never will. Having such articles is not helpful. They have to be tagged as stubs, but that is to invite WP:OR, i.e. invention or fiction. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:11, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - it is WP:COMMON to keep pages on the children of emperors and other nobility from Roman times and forward. XavierItzm (talk) 21:10, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Non-sequitur. It is also common that emperor's children have sources about them and what they did; that does not appear to be the case here. Reywas92^Talk 21:32, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Untrue. Sources cited include Gibbon's The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, and the Liber Pontificalis. Note to closing editor: these sources are so authoritative, each of these two sources is blue-linked to its very own Wikipedia page! WP:RS simply don't get any more blue-chip than that. XavierItzm (talk) 21:44, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• This has absolutely nothing to do with the authoritative nature of the sources - accuracy is not the issue. WP:BASIC: "trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources" doesn't cut it, and that is all Gibbon gives him in that single sentence in which he is named; "Primary sources . . . do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject," so mention in the Liber is of no weight whatsoever. It is simply not tenible to suggest that the passing mention of a single anecdote in all of the cited sources combined provides the "significant coverage" indicated by WP:BIO as the basis for notability. Agricolae (talk) 23:07, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• First, the Liber Pontificalis is being cited by Lynda Garland of the University of New England in New South Wales. That's a WP:SECONDARY; therefore, the argument that "mention in the Liber is of no weight whatsoever" is untenable. Second, Gibbon is, as you admit, also a secondary source, meeting and far exceeding any and all criteria listed on WP:AEIS; therefore, any claims against it are, again, invalid. Third, clearly the Garland cit. is more than "a passing mention," as her citation clearly arises from her raising an inventory of all bibliography available to her. Who does "passing mentions" that require reviewing all avail. lit? XavierItzm (talk) 23:46, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• If Garland is citing the Liber, Garland is the secondary source, and as such the Liber, as a primary source, does not contribute to notability as per WP:BIO, no matter how authoritative you argue it is. And as to Garland, the only thing she adds to the anecdote is a statement that we know absolutely nothing other than the anecdote in the Liber, which is not "significant coverage" by any stretch of the imagination. And yes, Gibbon is a secondary source, but he only makes passing mention of this anecdote. That is not "significant coverage", that is "trivial coverage of a subject by [a] secondary source[.]" Being mentioned in an authoritative secondary source is sufficient for verifiability, but that is not the same as notability, for which there are more stringent criteria. The question is not your "Who does passing mentions?", but "who has done anything but passing mention?", certainly not any of the cited sources and given Garland's explicit statement that there is nothing else to say, . . . . Agricolae (talk) 00:13, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not notable. His existence, relations and the hair episode can be covered in his father's article. Srnec (talk) 03:17, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep/Merge. There's sufficient sourcing here for a stub article IMHO, but merging the little amount of content here to his father's article would be absolutely preferable to outright deletion per WP:PRESERVE. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 15:50, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Striking merge, since Keep is my preference, and merging/redirecting is only preferable to deletion. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 16:14, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge & redirect to his father for reasons stated by Peterkingiron. Marginal figure who is notable only for his relationship. Kind of like Eric Trump 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:39, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. We have tens of thousands of BLPs (and BPs) on WP now that fully meet WP:GNG, but whose article will be deleted in the coming decades. Even now, we see them at AfD. Their RS wanes, and editors realise that while GNG is a guide, it is not the only criteria. In 1,000 years from now, Heraclius still will be recorded by historians. Unlike the reference to Eric Trump above (who does not become U.S. President if his father dies), at a point in time, Heraclius was the 3rd most important person in the western world, and would have had plenty of contemporary RS/GNG notability (long since gone, probably deliberately so given his brother). The most important man in the western world at that time (Constantine IV), sent a lock of his Heraclius' hair, and the hair of the 2nd most important person (Justinian II), to the most important western religious leader, Pope Benedict II; and it gets recorded in one of the most important books of that era, the Liber Pontificalis. This is not a nobody.

Heraclius is listed in almost every major historical book on that era, from Gibbons onwards (I could list 20 such references). In the future, historians/readers will want to understand specifically what we know, and what we don't know about Heraclius. Deletion or Redirect of such a figure on WP makes no sense. There is no PROMO/COI here to be addressed.

His father's WP article is already modest, and therefore any Merge with Constantine IV will probably see future editors remove the little detail we have on Heraclius as unnecessary given the modest size of his father's article (and potentially with justification). I think it is a perverse application of the GNG rules to do this. We should be able to record what little we know about this – at one time exceptionally notable character –– properly and not bury it inside another article where it will get edited away. Britishfinance (talk) 14:31, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Heraclius was never the third most important person in the western world. He would not have had plenty of RSs were they not. He was not an exceptionally notable character. This is all anachronistic thinking. Everything we know about him amounts to a single sentence: that his father sent locks of his and his brother's hair to the Pope. That one sentence could be put on Constantine's page right now (indeed, it just has), without merging. If that one sentence can't survive on Constantine's page, it certainly shouldn't survive as the basis for a stand-alone page, no matter how much it is bloated with 'context' in the fashion of a pseudobiography. Agricolae (talk) 16:42, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• But your entry doesn't note that JM Hussey lists him as being born in 670? It doesn't note that Dale de Lee Benjamin records him as surviving his father. It doesn't note that his father did not make Heraclius Agusti unlike what Constans II did for him. It doesn't note that the lock of hair was a sign of the Pope Benedict II adopting Heraclius. Or that is Greek name was Herakleios.

Even Google have a "Knowledge Graph" entry for Heraclius, son of Constantine IV, with his biographical details listed. /g/11hd1s3c8x but WP feels that he is not worthy of coverage (outside of one line buried in his father's bio). Our readers will have to rely on en.everybodywiki.com That is how absurd this is? Britishfinance (talk) 11:18, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He existed, he was a younger son, and he got his haircut. All the rest is fluff, speculation and pseudobiographical backfill. That you are now resorting to citing Google searches, Wikipedia mirrors and (on his page) geni.com is exactly how absurd this is. Agricolae (talk) 14:07, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• According to RS, he was adopted by the Pope, he was born c 670 (plus more as noted above). Your response above shows that you have a strong POV here (as do I); yours is a subset of the facts; and you POV the RS of other historians as "fluff, speculation and pseudobiographical backfill".

But readers are not coming here to read your (or my) view of Heracilus, they are coming to find the RS from known historians on Heraclius – and it is clearly more than one line. Sadly, they will have to rely on en.everybodywiki.com or Google KG to find it. Britishfinance (talk) 14:31, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is no RS that says he was adopted by the Pope. There are RSs that say the sending of a child's hair, such as happened for him and his brother, can be (not must be) indicative of a symbolic adoption, something that says more about the father than the child even were it true. Where do the birthdates come from? - he was a younger son and we know how old his brother was. From that, and that alone, come Garland's more-than-a-decade range and Hussey's approximation, but the fact is that he was younger brother to Justinian. As to him surviving his father, that directly contradicts Garland's statement that we don't have that information. That he wasn't named co-Emperor is what he wasn't, not what he was, and it wasn't Heraclius who made the choice, so this this may tell us something about his father's ruling philosophy, but not him. All of this, the contradictions, the discussion of different authors' guesses, the elaborate accounting of what he wasn't, are not indicative of the need for an independent article. They are the result of having a single historical datum, that Constantine sent locks of his two sons' hair to the Pope, and trying to spin the various RS's passing reference to this event and its otherwise completely unknown, historically-irrelevant younger son of Constantine into a full Wikipedia biography - this is part of the reason why Wikipedia has notability guidelines, because non-notable people don't have enough known about them to be able to avoid writing what is nothing more than a pseudobiographical Wikipedia entry about them.

All these words spilled here, about dire consequences and the hoards of readers desperate for information about Heraclius that will have to resort to Google searches and Wikipedia mirrors, and yet it is really as simple as this: no reliable source has given this obscure individual any more than scant passing reference, and as such he does not meet any of the relevant policies or guidelines for notability. Agricolae (talk) 16:40, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Again, whole block of text of more POV on events. Lets take this first one: "There is no RS that says he was adopted by the Pope.". This referernce says it was adoption "He would have the Pope adopt his two sons", and this one "the recieving of locks of hair being the customary token of these adoptions", and this (from Ferdinand Gregorovius) "certain that it is, that he allowed his two sons, Justin and Heraclius to be adopted by the Pope, sending to Benedict according to the curious custom of the time, locks of hair of both princes; symbols of adoption that were solemnly deposited in the chapel of the Lateran". I could post 10 more citations from (incl. Duchesne himself, per article) stating that the Pope adopted the two princes (without qualification). I could provide the same to refute the other POV statements you make above.

Again, this is not about my (or your views) on the subject. It is to capture and chronicle what historians do say about Heraclius. Even in the specific issue of the Pope adopting Heraclius, I can produce over 10 works that discuss the affair (and Heraclius). Your POV comments show that you have decided an outcome, but the more you assert your POV, the more RS that is produced to show that it is a POV. All I am doing is adding RS to this article on aspects of Heraclius life, and they keep building up.

Sadly, given Heraclius had been compared to Eric Trump (again, notwithstanding the irony I raised earlier re Prince Andrew, that ET has a huge WP article, but in 1,000 years time ET will be forgotten where as Heraclius will be chronicled), perhaps my efforts are to nothing. Britishfinance (talk) 19:35, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And as you bloat the article with passing references that represent nothing but alternative spins on the same one datum we know about him (and only one of which sources dedicates an actual sentence to him, that being Garland stating that we don't known anything else about him), it only demonstrates exactly how utterly obscure this infant is. This is clearly not a notable person. In spite of your groundless and endless insistence that the well-established criteria for notability should be blatantly ignored (and repeated referral to irrelevant modern people), he does not merit a page. WP:BIO applies, even to ancient royal infants, and this royal infant has never received the required significant coverage, anywhere. Agricolae (talk) 21:20, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• No. I am adding RS on facts we do know. Repeating Garland, Garland, Garland (an RS I added), is not going to change the fact that we know more than one sentance. I am trying to do some actual work on this article and adding actual RS content. I am not the soure of the "bloating", "groundless", "instance".

Britishfinance (talk) 02:24, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to by trying to incorporate as it it were a different piece of information every passing reference, every implication that a different author has drawn from the single datum that we know about this obscure person. Agricolae (talk) 14:12, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

:Above it was said that «Heraclius was never the third most important person in the western world». Oh my. How many wars, how many coups, how many died in the times of kings because of succession issues, whether real, made-up or even just gossiped about? There is simply no question that the son of any Byzantine emperor was one of the most important people in the planet, merely by breathing. The Empire of the Romans was the most important polity of Heraclius' age, stretching from the Black Sea shores of the Caucasus, across the Mediterranean, to the Balearics and Septem (Ceuta) in the west. The Empire at this time kept the Arabs confined to the East and South, the Slavs to the North and East, and the Franks, Lombards and Visigoths in their homelands. The position that Heraclius is not one of the most critical persons in the planet at the time is simply untenable. XavierItzm (talk) 00:36, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that an important person has 'an heir and a spare' does not automatically make the spare 'one of the most important people on the planet' and place at his feat responsibility for the stable succession of an empire, particularly when a place like Constantinople did not have a tradition of stable succession. It is anachronistic to assume modern rules of succession even applied, and to therefore conclude that that makes this infant important. We know precisely one thing about his life - he had hair a hair cut. Yes, we have a few articles on similar individuals, but only because historians have waxed extensively about how history would have been different if only . . . , but no historian has given this individual more than passing mention. Agricolae (talk) 14:12, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• He was the second eldest prince to the most powerful man in the western world, and adopted by the most powerful religious leader in the western world; and his older brother became the most powerful man etc. I could paste 30 references from works of RS historians on the period which all list Heracilus (I have already added several, and several have their own WP page). In another 1,500 years time, a very material % of WP BLPs will have been deleted because their subjects, despite meeting our WP:GNG, had no long-term notability. Heraclius will still be getting chronicled. I say we keep and preserve whatever pieces – which is more than one line – that we have on him. It seems totally absurd to do otherwise?

What is strange about this discussion is that none of the Deletes/Redirects want to discuss any of the additional material (ahem, hard work), added and sourced from major historians (with their own WP pages). Usually in an AfD, when somebody adds high-quality RS to the article is warrants discussion. In this AfD, it is ignored, and the POV is just amplified that there is "just one line", when the facts patently now show that our knowledge of Heraclius is more (which is I guess why amplifying the POV-argument is the only option). Britishfinance (talk) 10:29, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Someone who appears in 30 lists is still only receiving passing reference. Do any of these authors give him a full paragraph? Is there even a full sentence where he is the sole subject (except for Garland saying we don't know anything about him other than the haircut)? Agricolae (talk) 14:12, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will discuss the additional material: None of it is "significant coverage" per the GNG, they are brief mentions on his existence and relationship but nothing actually about him. None of the additional material is content that is not already at or cannot be added to Constantine IV. The notability or reliability of the sources does not translate to the notability of the subject or the necessity that it be in a separate article. Reywas92^Talk 02:28, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:NOTPAPER. Now that this page has been created, it would serve no useful purpose to delete it as all that does is make it viewable by admins alone. What's the point of that? Andrew D. (talk) 21:33, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The point would be that the person is not independently notable, so the article is contrary to policy. We do not know when he was born. He was not emperor, but then neither was I. He is known from one episode. No information need be deleted. It can all easily be covered with less fluff in his father's article, where anybody can see it. Srnec (talk) 15:06, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Not true. One of the most regarded Byzantine historians, Joan M. Hussey, puts it at 670. Neither Prince Andrew nor Prince Harry will ever be king (or at least have less of a chance then Heraclius) and have WP articles. This article quotes major historians which give other facts on him. This is the same POV-argument made above but it has been shown not to be true. Britishfinance (talk) 15:44, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And why does Hussey say he was born then? Because he was younger than his brother, who was born about 668, so yeah, let's put Heraclius at 670. That's it. There is nothing more behind this. It is just another passing reference based on the same single actual fact, that he was the younger of two sons whose hair was sent to the Pope. Andrew was not relevant when you first mentioned him and continues to be irrelevant, as is Harry. Notability by analogy is not a valid concept. Agricolae (talk) 19:07, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is the sort of thing you'd expect to find in a legitimate encyclopedia. The fact they didn't have newspapers and television back then to talk about people nonstop like the royals today, is not relevant. There is no limit of space in Wikipedia, and there is some historical mention of this person. Dream Focus 17:41, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good news then, you can still find it at Constantine IV! Incredible how low the bar had gotten: They were mentioned!!1! WP:PAPER explicitly says "this policy is not a free pass for inclusion" and is not a valid argument at AFD. Reywas92^Talk 19:30, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• No you can't. As shown above, historians – who are notable enough to have their own WP article – have more to say about Heraclius than one line. It is surreal that in an infinite project like WP, in a case with zero PROMO/COI, that a POV-argument is being pushed to remove RS content about a 1,500 year old prince (2nd in line) of the most powerful person in the western world at that time? Never mind the tens of thousands of WP BLPs on figures that will be deleted within a 100 years; in another 1,500 thousand years, this charachter will still be chronicled. However, under this AfD, and the POV views above, you will have to go to Everybodywiki: Heraclius (son of Constantine IV) to find more. Britishfinance (talk) 10:23, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He was not necessarily 'second in line'. It is anachronistic to apply to Byzantium the strict rules of succession that are applied to modern monarchies. (Under this AfD, a non-notable person will only be mentioned on his father's page. Oh, the humanity!) Agricolae (talk) 14:12, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• But when you made a similar blanket comment above about about him not being adopted by the Pope, which was shown to be false (with major references who had written paragraphs on the affair), you went silent?

I suspect you would like me to go silent, but that he was adopted is still implication rather than fact, again derived from our sole datum, that his father sent the Pope his hair. Agricolae (talk) 19:16, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why not contribute to the article rather than POV-posting in AfD - but that would add even more content to the article, which would defeat your POV (in a way, your POV it caught in a trap). However, I share your sentiments on the humanity. Britishfinance (talk) 15:19, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing to add. The article is already fluff. We do not know when he was born: "was born between 667 to 685" means after his older brother and before his dad died. That he was never emperor or co-emperor is, I suppose, a fact about him. Maybe we should also mention that he was not a pineapple while we're at it? The sentence In contrast, the brothers of his father, Heraclius and Tiberius, had been crowned Augusti with Constantine IV during the reign of their father Constans II, but in 681 Constantine IV had them mutilated so they would be ineligible to rule. tell us nothing about Heraclius. The same goes for in contrast, his brother Justinian II's death is known as 711, while his mother Anastasia outlived all her family and died sometime after 711. We are reduced to one episode in one source, as everybody has been saying. If it were a lengthy episode, perhaps an article on that would be useful so as not bog down Constantine IV's article. But it isn't. Srnec (talk) 17:43, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• No, Joan M. Hussey says he was born in 670 (as referenced in the article). Arguments like him not being a pineapple (which you haven't even referenced; unlike everything that has been added to this article during this AfD) show that you are not interested in a good faith discussion here, but have a POV-view. You forget to mention that he was adopted by the Pope, and you forget to mention that his not being made Agusti was in contrast to his father's treatment of his brothers. You only demonstrate you are here to push an agenda regardless of the well referenced fact-base, or of the value of this fact base is to our readers. If I need a POV-encloypedia according to Srnec, I know where to go. Britishfinance (talk) 02:00, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And both of these so-called facts about him, his approximate birthdate and his supposed adoption, are just implications drawn from the only actual fact, that his father sent the hair of two sons to the Pope, and he is the second-named. Both the tonsorial gift and the failure to crown the boys, as decisions made by their father, tell us much more about Constantine than they do about the two kids who likely played no conscious role in either the act or the non-act of their father. Agricolae (talk) 02:28, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - as per Britishfinance. I see no advantage in deleting a perfectly adequate article on a historical figure about whom little is known. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:42, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep because this is an encyclopedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:28, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep he is a historical figure, and as the son of an emperor he is notable, but in both medieval and modern sources he is essentially a footnote. Personally for such cases, where the person in question has no agency of his own and no notable fact other than his existence, I prefer to include this at the parents' articles rather than in a dedicated article. However, I have seen similar entries in encyclopedias before, and since we don't have space constraints, I see no harm in keeping the article, and no immediate benefit to deleting/merging. Constantine ✍ 14:22, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It seems to me there are (now) sufficient reliable sources. I am going by WP:BASIC and its first bullet point qualification. All that apart, it would be silly to delete this and WP:N advises towards using common sense. Thincat (talk) 17:07, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Britishfinance, Phil Bridger, Constantine, Thincat. Mosaicberry (talk) 12:10, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Yes, children of significant rulers are and should be seen as notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:24, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. It is perhaps worth repeating that the figure in question—Heraclius, son of Constantine IV—is named precisely once in one source. He is known from a single episode. Everything we know about him can be summed up in one sentence. The best reason to delete is that the article at present leaves you with the impression there is more. There isn't. It's just worded to look like there is (although footnote #2 is honest). Srnec (talk) 04:31, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per those arguing that the sons of Roman emperors are presumed to be notable, even if evidence is scarce. I have two standards: people written about in premodern times are likely to be notable, and the children of ruling sovereigns are almost always notable. Bearian (talk) 22:16, 16 March 2019 (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.