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 delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:42, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Claudia Dicaeosyna[edit]

Claudia Dicaeosyna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Obscure woman named on a stone inscription, with no evidence of why she's important. Content of the article is basically unverifiable, the source only ventures a guess based on the husband's name, and so it's impossible to know for sure if she indeed married Tiberius Claudius Narcissus instead of someone else of the same name. Avilich (talk) 02:10, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Avilich (talk) 02:10, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Avilich (talk) 02:10, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:41, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I redirected this to the page for her possible husband one month ago, and you felt the need to recreate it just so you could put it up for AFD? In what way is this not a waste of everyones time? Even if its true that there is a possibility that she may actually have been married to someone else of the same name, there are still sources that do describe her as his wife and this is a plausible search term for people. There should still be mention of their possible marriage on Narcissus article.★Trekker (talk) 11:54, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, there's precisely one single source (a very old one at that) which does so, and even that is just a one-line speculation which the author didn't waste ten seconds with. I could find no other source which discusses her, so I don't really think she should be discussed in the main page. Presumably you didn't know back then that it was just a "possible husband", since the article is totally misleading in this regard. I think this should just be deleted for the same reason any article on some random freedman would be deleted, and for the same reason that most of the millions of freedmen who ever existed don't have redirects. If you disagree, then by all means vote redirect, but your time is solely yours to spend and to 'waste'. Avilich (talk) 18:04, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• • • I don't really see why it matters if its one sentence speculation that you think the author didn't spend enough time on. Its still a plausible search term thats has been associated with Narcissus for over 100 years now, the Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology is a very widely read work.★Trekker (talk) 21:48, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not very likely that anybody will even hear of this name before that of Narcissus himself, so nobody will search for it before already stumbling upon the meager information available on her. Anyway, the article has several misleading and unverifiable statements which makes it desirable to delete before redirecting. If you wish to recreate it as a blank redirect afterwards, then just go ahead, nobody will stop you. Avilich (talk) 02:31, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So you were actually perfectly ok with a redirect to the possible husband, yet still decided to recreate the article just to delete it?★Trekker (talk) 11:46, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This is available via GScholar: PRESENÇAS IMPERIAIS NAS VILLAE DE STABIAE (COLLINA DI VARANO) (NEARCO – Revista Eletrônica de Antiguidade 2015, Ano VIII, Número I – ISSN 1972-8713). Google translation from Portuguese: "He married another freed from the emperor, named Claudia Dicaeosyna." at fn 22. Beccaynr (talk) 19:43, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment GBooks also has a few sources, including WP:SECONDARY speculation on the origin of her name, and a source less sure of the existence of the marriage, citing the 1846 version of this (A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology). Beccaynr (talk) 19:56, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid this doesn't bring us any further than step zero, which is that a woman of that name existed and was married to some "Tiberius Claudius Narcissus". Lulu.com is an online print-on-demand, self-publishing platform, whereas the Alford source says basically nothing about her, aside from merely noting the inscription's existence and her name in it. The claim she was a freedwoman of Claudius is an unverifiable one that the Wikipedia article itself made without any authority: it is not corroborated by the source which the Portuguese article cites, so I think it simply took the information from Wikipedia and assumed it was true. Compare its publication date, 2015, with the date of the Wikipedia article's creation, 2007, and the date of its transclusion to the Portuguese Wikipedia, 2010. Avilich (talk) 23:18, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No sources found, not notable. Oaktree b (talk) 00:15, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Well, this AfD has dug up 4 sources, actually. I've included the new sources on the husband's page to say as much as possible about Claudia there. Do others think there's enough info there to merit a redirect? Ficaia (talk) 06:23, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And I reverted it, because the sources aren't any good, as I explained above. Avilich (talk) 15:55, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One of the sources isn't any good. So I've restored my edit and removed the spurious source. Ficaia (talk) 00:11, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/Redirect to her husband Tiberius Claudius Narcissus. There is nothing in this stub to indicate she is notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:22, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 17:53, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no certainty she was what this article claims. It could be conveying false facts at worst, and at best, it shows she was not notable enough to have more than a single inscription bearing only her name. Nothing else can be said about her. It would be too remarkably short for a stand alone article. (That was sarcasm.) Delete delete! Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:08, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to establish consensus as to whether a redirect would be appropriate or edit warred over.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:41, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Once again, it's not even known for certain whether the subject was even associated with the redirection target, and the name is no less obscure than the million others that can be found in existing stone inscriptions, so it's unlikely to be a useful search term at all. Can this be closed already? I'm sure creating this article didn't take 3 weeks. Avilich (talk) 15:11, 28 February 2022 (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.