Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Publius Flavius Vegetius Renatus

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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Publius Flavius Vegetius Renatus[edit]

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

With the exception of the two books (or maybe one) that he wrote, almost nothing is known about this person. There will likely never be anything to say about the man, only his books. The question is whether to have a biography about an author who is a complete mystery. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 01:59, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep of course. We know very little about very many writers. In Vegetius' case what we know (both from his books and from external sources) is more than for many: that he was a Christian, that he wrote at some point between the death of Gratian and 450, that he held one of the top positions in the imperial civil service, that he kept horses. The two (or probably three) works of his that we have are diverse and an article on the author brings them together. (Incidentally, the current article is merely poor, whereas the De Re Militari article is terrible.) N p holmes (talk) 06:57, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. In such cases literary and biographical study are connected. At the very least it would be merged, but I agree that having a separate place to discuss any issues regrading life or disputed authorship is the better choice. --Tikiwont (talk) 10:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly keep -- Even if his authorship of one book is doubtful, an article on him is worth having. In view of the clear consensus the merge nomination should also be closed as a Keep (or possibly merging the book to this article). It is not unusual for us to know very little of subjects in the ancient world, but that is not reson for WP not setting out what is known. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:41, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. My rule of thumb is that people who lived before movable type are notable if their names were written down in a preserved text. Ancient Roman writers on the art of war are the sorts of thing that belong in encyclopedias, even if very little is known about them personally. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:14, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:17, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Encyclopedia-worthy topic and passably sourced. The writings are the point here, the author's bio may never be written, but that doesn't mean his name isn't going to be searched or the content here is insufficient. Well enough sourced and nicely enough done, leave it alone. Carrite (talk) 20:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep See discussion. (I'm new at this. Sorry I got it in the wrong place.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ColonelA (talk contribs) 13:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The criterion for inclusion is not, as the nominator seems to think, how much is known about him, but rather how much has been written about him in reliable sources. Almost nothing is known about Pythagoras (even whether he existed has been disputed) but a huge amount has been written about him, and he is certainly notable. I don't know how much coverage there is of Publius Flavius Vegetius Renatus, which is why I am not going for a "keep" or a "delete", but I just wanted to make clear what the issue to be discussed is and is not. Elton Bunny (talk) 16:04, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per (1) Colonel A ("Recommend retaining. Since Vegetius' two known works are so different--and not subsets of each other--a reader might legitimately want to know how much--or little--is known about him."), (2) Smerdis ("people who lived before movable type are notable if their names were written down in a preserved text." and "Ancient ... writers on the art of war are the sorts of thing that belong in encyclopedias..."), and (3) my own standards based on what he said. If you were notable enough 2,000 years ago to get your name onto parchment, you are still notable: once notable, always notable. Bearian (talk) 23:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. If the standard of biographies ought to be how much is reported or known about the subject, then scores of biographies would have to be deleted, e.g., Walter Olson. Bearian (talk) 19:26, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Important historian. He was sufficiently important for 1911 Britannica, why he is not for Wikipedia :) -- Bojan Talk 07:30, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If he's notable enough for a print encyclopedia, he's notable enough for Wikipedia. Deletion rationale is flawed, it could equally well apply to Homer.Edward321 (talk) 13:43, 5 November 2010 (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.