Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Valerius Volesus

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 redirect to Valeria (gens)#Origin. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 16:55, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Valerius Volesus[edit]

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

This person is not notable. Nothing is known of him, except that he is presumed to be a descendant of an earlier Volesus in the time of Romulus, and was the father of three early figures in the Roman Republic. All of this information is already covered in the articles on his ancestor, his children, and the gens Valeria. Also, his name was Volesus Valerius, not Valerius Volesus. The use of Volesus or Volusus as a surname in this gens dates to his sons, two of whom apparently adopted it in honor of their father. But as nothing is known about Volesus other than his name and relationship to other members of the gens, this article isn't necessary. P Aculeius (talk) 01:46, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As impatient as I am at the moment with technical procedure that occludes utility, I still feel obliged to point out that what you probably want is a redirect to Valeria (gens)#Origin, not an actual deletion of the page. In which case, you could probably just be bold and do that. I would certainly support such an action. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:19, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That sounds reasonable, Cynwolfe. I'll defer to your judgment in this, but it may take a day or two for me to get to it. P Aculeius (talk) 05:59, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - What I meant was, in case my tone was off, if you come upon similar things that are unreferenced, you could probably spare yourself the drag of a formal procedure, and try redirecting first. If there's an objection, then you can propose a deletion. Have no idea whether I've just advised you to do something that would be frowned up, but it seems in keeping with "be bold". Cynwolfe (talk) 16:34, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your comment that the name should be Volesus Valerius, not the other way around. Thanks for pointing it out. I also agree with Cynwolfe's redirect suggestion. I created the page because a number of articles already linked to the page, and I had enough material to create a stub. I was hoping to find additional information about Volesus from other sources but I think you are right - there is nothing more to add.--Urg writer (talk) 22:03, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus? So far, that seems to be a consensus for redirecting: the figure is seminal and will be mentioned often (as Urg Writer points out), but in ways that make him integral to the gens and its origins, not so much as somebody who could generate an independent article. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:48, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 01:49, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:31, 2 August 2013 (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.