Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bestia (family)

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 Lucius Calpurnius Bestia. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:22, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bestia (family)[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This article is now obsolete, since the two persons described therein have their own pages as of now. There was also no "Bestia family" worthy of mention: the article owes its current format to how the entries are grouped up in the 1911 Britannica. Avilich (talk) 15:58, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:38, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Calpurnia gens. It's not unlikely that someone researching one of the Bestiae is looking for information about how they were all related. Presumably they did constitute a family, although it looks as if there's an intervening generation that avoided public life. I note that the article owes its format primarily to the concept of the "prosopography page", articles listing multiple biographies of homonymous Romans that each received only a couple of paragraphs. Grouping them has some value, although I've never been convinced that it's better to exclude Romans who don't share all tria nomina and include all who do, than to group them by actual relationship, which is why I generally favour splitting. But not all editors agree with this assessment, so generally I've left prosopography pages alone, and added hatnotes to each section leading to more detailed biographical articles. In this case, the individual biographies contain everything that's in the original, and there were only two persons covered, so it might as well be a redirect; by title it would best go to the gens page, which lists all known members of this family. P Aculeius (talk) 13:25, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
redirect but to Lucius Calpurnius Bestia, which is a dabpage for the two articles. Bestia is a credible search term, so that it is best that we do not delete. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:14, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
redirect but to Lucius Calpurnius Bestia as argued by Peterkingiron. The family does not exist as its own subsection but rather as part of the Calpurnia gens and having these cognomen "families" represented on Wikipedia will only lead to confusion and misconceptions in regards to who was family with who. CutieyKing (talk) 09:13, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - While I understand the impetus for the redirect, Bestia already exists as a dab page. If a redirect is warranted, the better target is Calpurnia gens#Calpurnii Bestiae, in fact, an argument could be made that Lucius Calpurnius Bestia should also redirect there, since it includes another entry not on the Lucius page. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:39, 29 December 2020 (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.