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 no consensus. Without prejudice against Srnec's solution. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 16:03, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vacis (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)

A minor figure in late antiquity mentioned in passing by Procopius. Should be briefly mentioned in the Gothic War (535–554), rather than in a separate article. The content is unverifiable because it is cited to a book without page number - the exact same useless citation I've seen so far in all four of Reesorville's articles I've looked at and AfD'ed today. This is after I noted in an AfD I closed that Reesorville lacks the skills required to research and write articles about scholarly topics (cf. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 May 10). Maybe they meant it to be a sort of placebo footnote? Sandstein 19:27, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 19:27, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: This user is attempting to delete lots of articles I wrote after I put a started a deletion review for a page that he deleted. I didn't mean anything personally against him when I started the deletion review and I hope he can see it like that. Figures that are notable do not need to be notable today, but as long as they were notable at one time, then they count as notable and can be given articles. Perhaps I was wrong, but I didn't think wiki had a policy that lack of page numbers means that a source can't be used. Reesorville (talk) 20:53, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Notability is not established and I don't believe notability has the possibility of being established. Andrew nyr (talk, contribs) 22:00, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:07, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. First of all, the nominator's statement regarding verifiability is ungrounded in policy. The fact that a citation is imperfect does not at all mean that it is unusable -- most scholarly books have indexes, after all, and etexts are easily searchable. In this case, not only is the etext searchable at Google Books, but a basic Google search easily turns up the exact text cited. And other scholarly sources discuss the subject; there's even a scholarly debate over his identity [1]. Which makes clear that the nom didn't even make a pretense at complying with WP:BEFORE. Third, encyclopedias of classical literature and similar reference works cover figures like this (note the entry in the source I cited), making him a suitable subject for Wikipedia to cover. Finally, the groundless hostility the nom expresses toward the article creator here and elsewhere really makes this proposal inappropriate, particularly since the nom's invective about the article creator's skills is rooted in a gross, undeniable error about the quality of a source. (See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 May 10) The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 01:44, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, scholarly debate? Like 3 mentions in 3 paragraphs of the book. All it can probably prove is WP:ITEXISTS. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:30, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:06, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I see that most keep votes target the nom instead of commenting on his arguments. WP:BEFORE does not mean that you refrain from nominating if you find single line trivial mentions. The subject fails SOLDIER guideline. He was a commander in an ancient army, but is not known for any of his deeds, without any claim to fame, he is not notable enough. The only thing that all sources mention is that he reproached the Romans for foresaking the Goths. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 15:14, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete lack of third party sources. I found him mentioned in https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=vefWDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA298&dq=Vacis+AND+Roman&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwignKu6yLHpAhXCiVwKHYfVD_YQ6AEIKDAA#v=onepage&q=Vacis%20AND%20Roman&f=false but in a foot note and in only one paragraph.
  In addition, the article only have 1 source. Both footnotes refer to the same book. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:26, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of Notability there are two points I should point out. He does indeed have very little coverage in sources as far as I can see and is largely known from Procopius' history concerning the Gothic wars where he is mentioned. He is definitely mentioned in more than one source, and I've added two more. However, I think perhaps not much is known about him beyond the meagre material in this article. That being said, wiki notability guidelines make clear that notability is not something that is lost after it exists. If a person was notable at any time in history, then he is notable forever, even if people in our time and age have barely ever heard of the person. The gothic war in Italy was one of the most significant conflicts of the 6th century and being a commander on one side of the war, as well as having an important role in a key siege, would certainly have made him notable in that time period. We have articles about military officers from contemporary wars and military actions who admittedly were far less significant in our time than this person would have been in his. Reesorville (talk) 20:15, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. He is sometimes identified with Wacca, majordomo of Theodahad. This pair/individual could be treated in a single article. They have entries in the Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft, the Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire and Patrick Amory's People and Identity in Ostrogothic Italy, 489—554. Theodahad has a biography (2014). Leaning keep if this solution is acceptable to all. I'd be willing to implement it. Srnec (talk) 03:14, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know that - I'm certainly OK with connecting it with that. Reesorville (talk) 09:45, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Either Keep or merge somewhere. Ideally, the material on Wacca should be merged in. I was going to suggest that this is a case of a person in late antiquity about whom we know nothing more than is in the article. In such cases, the appropriate course is either to keep or to merge; certainly not delete. DONOTBITE seems to apply to the attack by the nom on the author's competence. We were all inexperienced once, and only get experience by effort and learning when others pointing out our failings. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:39, 16 May 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.