Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quartus

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 consensus was fairly clear after the merge and is very clear following relisting, so closing early per WP:RELIST.--Salix (talk): 08:25, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quartus[edit]

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

Unsourced and non-notable person ReformedArsenal (talk) 18:12, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. Probably the most obscure person in the New Testament, but I could still find a reference, which is why I think that all biblical characters are notable. St Anselm (talk) 21:31, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. St Anselm (talk) 21:46, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or rename Quartus (Bible). Quartus should redirect to the more notable Quartus of Berytus. Merge w/ Quartus of Berytus. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:16, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Surely that's the same person! He's listed with Erastus and Tertius. Likewise, Erastus of Paneas is the same as Erastus of Corinth, and those pages should be merged. This website refers to Romans 16:23 in talking about the saints. St Anselm (talk) 22:33, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In light of the above discovery, I must change my !vote to merge with Quartus of Berytus. St Anselm (talk) 22:59, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone ahead and boldly completed the merge. St Anselm (talk) 05:06, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with this, as long as we can find a good published resource that makes this connection. Simply seeing the same name (and a common name that means "fourth") in a list with another name and assuming that they are the same person stinks of WP:OR ReformedArsenal (talk) 12:19, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NM, found one. ReformedArsenal (talk) 12:24, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. May be obscure, but is still a saint. Saints acknowledged by major churches are by definition notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:15, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't we redirect from the general (Quartus) to the more specific (Quartus of Berytus)? Right now, it goes the other way. ReformedArsenal (talk) 12:08, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on how he's more commonly known. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:29, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just figured that a search term would turn up Quartus more frequently than Quartus of Berytus. ReformedArsenal (talk) 14:20, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, he is sometimes known simply as "Quartus". St Anselm (talk) 19:40, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Quarus is the Latin for fourth, and may have been a common name for a fourth son. Whether the person nmaed in Romans and the Bishop of Beriut were the same person, we will never know. Quartus of Berytus is currently a redirect to this article. Whether the article concerns one person or two, we certainly need it. It may be better to reverse the article and redirect, starting with "Quartus of Berytus" and going on to talk about the other one, of whom we apparently know nothing certain but his name. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:30, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theo polisme 00:35, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This has been relisted by a non-admin. I personally think relisting the debate is a waste of people's time, and I have posted a note to that effect on the editor's talk page. StAnselm (talk) 01:16, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There are no provisions for who can relist a debate. Admins as well as non-admins have equal right to perform relists. The consensus doesn't seem to be clear, perhaps per WP:RELIST, this is an appropriate relist. Relists are to generate clear consensus and 2 keep, 2 merge and 1 delete (nom) !vote is not at all a clear consensus. Thus, I second this relist. Thank you. TheSpecialUser ^TSU 01:26, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The merge has already been performed (as mentioned above), and the 2 keep !votes refer to the merged article. How is that not a clear consensus? The reason why admins normally relist debates (and I notice you're not an admin, either), is because of the expectation that they will carefully read through the deletion discussion. St Anselm (talk) 01:44, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I missed that. But, I see that you yourself performed the merge. I believe that you should have at least waited for a consensus to do so. You stated merged content to Quartus per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quartus just a day after this AfD started and it was way too rushed according to me. TheSpecialUser ^TSU 01:49, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly why I used the word "boldly" above. I merged the articles because they were about the same person. Admittedly, I should have used "per" in the edit summary - it makes it look like it was the result of the AfD discussion. St Anselm (talk) 01:53, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As TSU said, you yourself performed the merge, and as such, it seems that, in keeping with 'giving everyone a voice', leaving this debate open for a few more days definitely can't hurt anything. —Theo polisme 02:02, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It wastes people's time. I suggest that if you are going to relist debates, you refrain from making controversial decisions. St Anselm (talk) 02:53, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

StAnselm, do also note that "a relisted discussion may be closed once consensus is determined without necessarily waiting a further seven days" (Wikipedia:RELIST). Also, you stated "the 2 keep !votes refer to the merged article." - How do you know that? The first comment from Necrothesp doesn't mention the merge? (Am I missing something). I bolded your comment so others do not miss it. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 07:24, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Necrothesp mentions sainthood (and, indeed, bases notability on it) - that came after the merge, of course - before the merge the article was about Quartus, the biblical character; after the merge it was Quartus, biblical character and saint. St Anselm (talk) 07:32, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Trust me, StAnselm, I hate feeling like even though a consensus should've been reached, since the other contributors to the AfD haven't checked back in, things will stay in limbo longer than they need to. It sucks, and we really need to have a drive to clean up AfD sometime soon. However, it's important to remember the fine line between being bold and gaming the system. Now, I'm not saying that you crossed that line here, but the whole point of WP:BB is that if you do something because it seems like the obvious best option, and another editor does another thing because it seems like the best option, then it's time to sit down and talk. You acted on a rough consensus to perform what appeared to be an obviously correct decision; good for you - no harm done. But the fact that Theopolisme saw fit to relist this debate should tell you that it may have not been a clear enough case to go the extra step, boldness-wise, of closing it just yet. You were bold, he was bold, great: Just remember that there's a difference between expediting a process and skipping past the critical step of reaching consensus. (Also, you might want to check out WP:NOBIGDEAL, if you haven't already, for an explanation of what non-admins can and can't do.) — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 08:18, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I don't have a problem with non-admins relisting (though it had never occurred to me to do it myself) but it needs to be done carefully - e.g. WP:RELISTINGISEVIL. It certainly appears to be the case that User:Theopolisme saw the two keep !votes and the two merge !votes and jumped to the conclusion that there was no consensus, without reading the discussion through properly to determine to what it was those votes were referring. Anyway, I guess this was my fear concerning wasting time. St Anselm (talk) 08:35, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This person demonstrates enough notablity that is verified by third party sources, in my opinion. The article would be more preferable to me if it acquired some more length - but I don't beleive this is likely. It's more than a stub though, a small article; a solid keep. Outback the koala (talk) 04:47, 20 November 2012 (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.