Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ulpia (grandmother of Hadrian)

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. There is a clear consensus that the subject is sufficiently notable relative to the time period from which she came. BD2412 T 05:24, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ulpia (grandmother of Hadrian)

Ulpia (grandmother of Hadrian) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the

Avilich (talk) 02:22, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

Avilich (talk) 02:22, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 02:39, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep -- In some cases like this, I would have voted to redirect to her husband, but she is important as part of the genealogical link between the successive emperor Trajan and Hadrian. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:36, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect/delete Restating the family tree into words does not show notability; sources do not provide significant coverage, just relationships. Template:Nerva–Antonine family tree shows the connection to both, which is not enough to keep as an article too. Reywas92^Talk 20:07, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep per Peterkingiron.4meter4 (talk) 00:33, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep I also agree Peterkingiron's point. VocalIndia (talk) 16:52, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Peter. She does have importance. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:55, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm not seeing here any demonstration of how 'she does have importance' or any guideline-based reason for keeping, just some drive-by copycatting of Peterkingiron's vote, which itself only calls for ignoring WP:NOTGENEALOGY without any reason. The subject here supposedly died before Trajan became emperor, meaning she was never part of the imperial family, so it's not like she gets automatic notability like some members of royal families.
  Avilich (talk) 22:31, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

If you study my contributions you will see I don't do "drive-by copycat" votes and I think you need to get some perspective on this matter. It is a discussion among interested editors, not a

WP:COMMONSENSE. You don't build an encyclopaedia by deleting information about notable people who lived in places and times about which relatively little is known. No Great Shaker (talk) 08:54, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

• You don't build an encyclopedia by adding content indiscriminately, down to the smallest of trivia about someone's distant relative. Someone's importance in history is measured by coverage in historical sources, not by retrojecting a conjectural 'celeb' status to someone in the past. Relatives of 'celebs' are usually notable because their relationship already causes them to have coverage anyway. The only thing that matters is sources, how much you think is enough doesn't matter because you have none.
  Avilich (talk) 15:50, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Last time I looked, the article cited eight sources with a direct quote about Ulpia in each citation. The article has not been created discriminately, unlike this AfD. You create an encyclopaedia using sources (eight of them so far in this article) and WP:COMMONSENSE. No Great Shaker (talk) 16:17, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't be purposely obtuse, I already told you that sources go no further than restating family relationships and name, none of which establishes notability. And whoever added these sources did not think to look carefully (it's no more than a
  Avilich (talk) 16:38, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I'm not at all interested in what you may have "already told me". You are not an editor that deserves respect. That much is clear from a cursory glance at your talk page. You are clearly obsessed with notability but let me remind you that the second G in GNG means guideline. As I have already told you, editors must use

WP:EDITDISC instead of blindly following this rule and that rule and the other rule. As it says in WP:COMMONSENSE: "Why isn't 'use common sense' an official policy? It doesn't need to be; as a fundamental principle, it is above any policy". You do not build an encyclopaedia by deleting information about topics that are so obviously useful. You build an encyclopaedia by developing articles about topics that readers may find useful – a student of Roman history would certainly find Ulpia's article useful. I have nothing further to say here. No Great Shaker (talk) 20:24, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Avilich (talk) 22:01, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep. Cobbling together an article from weak sources for a person from the ancient world is an entirely different matter from doing that for a modern person and we should not treat them equivalently. In our time, that can be done for almost any nobody (and frequently is which is why CSD And AFD are so busy). On the other hand, there are a very limited number of people we even know the names of from the ancient world. Ulpia comes from an important patrician family and if she were alive today she would have a biography written, the papers would be full of stories about her, and she might make the cover of Forbes or Vogue. SpinningSpark 22:57, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Not a patrician, and never a member of the imperial family; pure conjecture about sources and coverage that don't exist
  Avilich (talk) 23:39, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I never said she was in the imperial family. And ok, not strictly a patrician (that's only men anyway), but her family is of senatorial rank and the distinction between that and patrician by her time was no longer of any real significance. SpinningSpark 09:09, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Not born of senatorial status either
  Avilich (talk) 15:50, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

So what? As Spinningspark said, no longer of any real significance. No Great Shaker (talk) 16:17, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

exactly

Avilich (talk) 16:38, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete. I agree that we should be particularly careful when assessing notability for historical figures (per
  WP:NOTGENEALOGY makes this even clearer. Unless there's some sort of non-trivial coverage that I'm missing, she isn't notable. I'm not averse to a redirect, but I don't think it would be particularly helpful: this is an unlikely search term, and there's no single logical target. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:11, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep, important as a historical figureJackattack1597 (talk) 21:35, 5 October 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.