Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gaius Julius Caesar I

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 no consensus to merge evident, but it can still be discussed without the need for an AFD. W.marsh 15:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gaius Julius Caesar I

Gaius Julius Caesar I (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Apparently non-notable ancestor of the famous Julius Caesar. Might merit a mention at the article on Julius Caesar, but probably doesn't need his own article. I would gladly withdraw this AFD if someone shows me Gaius is indeed notable and backs it up with history books or journals. Plinth molecular gathered 22:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep- he was the great-grandfather of Caesar, a senator in his own right. Given the size of the article (which could be expanded), I think it easily covers noteability.JJJ999 00:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you proof he's a senator. Jbeach56 01:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete We can't have an article about every U. S. senator, much less Roman senators who died millenia ago. Cyclopediafixer 14:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — It's stating the obvious, but
    Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. So I'd say we can have an article about every U.S. senator. This doesn't seem like a valid reason to delete. — RJH (talk) 15:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Comment We definitely can and should have an article on every current U. S. senator. Should we have an article on an 19th Century U. S. senator who always toed the party line in his votes and who never made the news outside of his state? That's the question I think Cyclopediafixer meant to ask. Robert Happelberg 23:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Robert, United State senators are notable per
    WP:BIO per defalt, maybe he meant state politicians? Jbeach56 01:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • • Comment I meant U. S. senators but in retrospect, per Jbeach56, my comment makes more sense for state senators. Though Bob Happ also makes a good analogy to past U. S. senators. Cyclopediafixer 02:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, because it's a notable relative of one of history's most important figures and is important to Roman historians. Because Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia we can afford to allow for such articles. Best, --
  Tally-ho! 15:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • See
    WP:PAPER, it tells right there that it isn't a reason for keeping. Jbeach56 01:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Keep. If we are talking about him more than 2000 years after he died, there is at least some evidence of notability. And yes, we certainly do or will have an article about every U.S. Senator. Newyorkbrad 16:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Brad's reasoning. Anyone seriously think anyone will be discussing
  Selénia at the dawn of the fifth millennium? --Jack Merridew 16:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weak keep although I am not 100% confident of JJJ999's designation. Partly because of the copious reuse of names in Roman dynasties it can be difficult to determine which Gaius Julius Caesar (for example) is meant in a given reference. If we have a definitive source that he was a senator that should be added. It should also be noted that not all scholarly sources use designations such as "I", "II", etc. because the Romans themselves did not. --Dhartung | Talk 20:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep We include members of major legislative bodies of all periods and countries. the very core of our encyclopedia is information about such people as US senators.We have all back to 1789. DGG (talk) 22:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No assertion or evidence of notability. --Strothra 22:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Plinth said he'd be willing to withdraw this AFD if someone showed him the appropriate "history books or journals". Any takers on that offer? Robert Happelberg 23:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note I made a comment on User:Yannismarou talk page, if he can't rescue the article, then there isn't much notabilty. Jbeach56 01:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete article has existed for more than a year, wouldn't it be much better by now? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Age of article doesn't really have to do anything with deleting. Jbeach56 01:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then perhaps redirecting it would be best at this point in time? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 16:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Julio-Claudian family tree for now until more info is found, I see no proof that he was a Roman Senator so I don't know how people got that assuption. And also, about brad reasoning, the romans, greeks, etc normally list the geneology of a famous person in their records, so I see nothing special about that. Jbeach56 01:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Jbeach. A one-sentence non-referenced article isn't worth keeping. Majoreditor 02:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Reply vis Proof- off the top of my head, I can't think of the souce, but I've done a course in Roman History, and in the absence of the time to go research it in the next few days I'd say the following:

a) I'm basically sure it is correct.

b) Nobody really seems to be disputing correctness

c) It would have been astounding if he wasn't a senator, given the way the family dynasties operated, since pretty much everyone else related to him, including Caesar's other g-grandfather, and all their sons, were senators.

So, off the top of my head, I can't tell you if it was Livy or Suetonious or whatever, and I'm too busy to go look right now, but I don't think anyone is questioning the validity in a serious way, and if kept we can give the page to the Roman experts who can fix it up.JJJ999 02:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Just expand. Sure it looks pathetic now, but it'll get better as most articles given time do Carter | Talk to me 10:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, or merge and redirect as per flawed nomination ("merit a mention at the article on Julius Caesar, but probably doesn't need his own article") --SmokeyJoe 10:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but not because of the supposedly "flawed nomination." The nominator has shown a willingness to admit mistakes, something which clearly sets him apart from fanatical deletionists who will do anything to get stuff deleted, including evidence contrary to their assertions. I will look on GoogleScholar, confident that I will find something contrary to the nominator's assertion that this Roman fellow is indeed notable. Anton Mravcek 23:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Normally, I wouldn't care about the age of an article nominated for AFD. But consider also that in the year since its creation, it hasn't gone beyond stating Gaius I's place in the Caesar family tree. Nor has the threat of deletion spurred anyone to expand the article or add citations (something which sometimes happens with unfair AFD nominations). I do have to agree with Anton that it's good to see the nominator acknowledging the possibility he could be mistaken. The fact that no one has taken up his call to show him the appropriate books or journals shows that Gaius I is not notable. I looked him up on Google Scholar, too. I only got two results: C. Iuli Caesaris De bello gallico libri VII.: Caesar's Gallic war by Caesar & Kelsey, and an article by J. C. Arias. Cromulent Kwyjibo 00:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Newyorkbrad as an historically notable subject worthy of interest. Yamaguchi先生 02:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Merge. Not given in Roman Aristocratic Parties and Families by Friedrich Münzer under his more famous great-grandson. The ancestry given for Julius the Dictator ends at the son of the subject of this article. It's safe to assume that he was a senator, but that just means he was one of 300 men, and possessed enough land/property to qualify for the Senate. Michael Grant doesn't mention him in his biography of Julius Caesar. Suetonius's biography of Julius Caesar is missing the section on Caesar's ancestry, so he's not mentioned there. Not mentioned in Livy's books on the war with Hannibal, and the early history of Rome by Livy ends in 386 BCE. No mention of Caesar's ancestry in Plutarch. Not sure there is anything out there to add to this article beyond the fact that he lived and was the Dictator's great-grandfather. Ealdgyth | Talk 04:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Julio-Claudian family tree. At this point the article only states the name of his father and son. Nothing that could not be included in the family tree. Dimadick 16:04, 20 October 2007 (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.