Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gaius Servilius Casca

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 delete. czar 04:18, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gaius Servilius Casca[edit]

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

Gaius Servilius Casca (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Mostly original research, and also fails WP:SIGCOV. What's known is that one of Julius Caesar's assassins, Publius Servilius Casca, had a brother with an unspecified role in the conspiracy. No reliable up-to-date source reveals anything else about the brother, not even that "Gaius Servilius Casca" was his actual name, which is a confusion with another person (see Broughton, Magistrates of the Roman Republic vol. 3 OCLC 749579922). The article's original rendition seems to have contained either questionable material with misleading citations (I checked them myself) or outright inventions (such as the original name, "Titiedius", before this article was moved to a less implausible, yet still incorrect name), though this apparently didn't stop the people at Articles for Creation from accepting the draft submission. Avilich (talk) 17:52, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Avilich (talk) 17:52, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Avilich (talk) 17:52, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have no definite opinion about this but note that The Death of Caesar: The Story of History's Most Famous Assassination (Strauss, 2015) identifies the second brother as Gaius Servilius Casca. If there's some confusion about this then it would be good to get it straight so that the issue does not keep repeating. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:35, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The source I cited says the name is a confusion with a 3rd person. "T. J. Cadoux believes that the evidence in our sources points to the existence of three rather than two Cascas, the two members of the conspiracy, and C[aius] Casca, Tr[ibune of the] pl[ebs]... Shackleton Bailey agrees that the evidence is in favor of the existence of three Cascas... The entries in the index would then be: [1] (Servilius) Casca, brother of the conspirator [subject of the nomination] ... [2] P. Servilius Casca Longus... [and] [3] C. Casca, Tr. pl. 44."
The Oxford Classical Dictionary's (2016) entry mentions the two brothers but has nothing to say about "Gaius".
These sources contain the inputs of 4 different authors: Broughton, Shackleton Bailey, Cadoux, Badian. An internet search reveals even more. Against them, Strauss shows no awareness of the argument that "Gaius Casca" was the name of a third person and not of Publius's brother, and he cites none of the works in which this is put forward. I'll boldly assume he simply wasn't up to date. Reading through his list of characters also makes me think he borrowed some info from wikipedia (WP:CITOGENESIS?). The brother already has an entry at Servilia gens#others, it doesn't seem to me like he needs a standalone article. Avilich (talk) 19:03, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stothard is a journalist, not a historian. Given the date of publication it is highly likely that this is a case of WP:CITOGENESIS, especially since neither of the authors I mentioned above nor any others I know about show the slightest knowledge of that name. Avilich (talk) 19:10, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • They're automatically notified since the article is within the project. Avilich (talk) 00:46, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure that all members of CGR automatically receive article alerts from the project. Based on who responds to them, it seems as though many, perhaps most, either don't receive them or don't review them. So it's probably a good idea to mention discussions like this on the project's talk page—not simply because it might be of interest, but because the contributors so far seem doubtful of the wisdom of deletion without further investigation. Since it's been suggested, I'll post a notice. P Aculeius (talk) 11:43, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I don't know what Stothard is citing. Does he say? Citogenesis is a possibility, given the date, but I'd like to feel more certain before reaching that conclusion. If he doesn't cite anything in relation to Casca, or a verifiable source he could have used, I'd be more comfortable with that assertion. I note quickly that I checked the Clauss-Slaby Databank, and found no instances of "Titiedius" and "Casca" in the same inscription—although that's hardly conclusive. Countless Romans, including many important ones, aren't mentioned in any known epigraphy. But it does exclude one possibility. But "Titiedius" certainly does appear to be a gentilicium, so it's possible that there was a Titiedius Casca. We should try to figure out where this combination of names comes from. P Aculeius (talk) 11:59, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I checked it, there are no inline citations to be seen anywhere near that excerpt. You're right that Titiedius is a 'gentilicium', but I found nothing connecting it with Casca. Avilich (talk) 15:28, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just seconding that Stothard did not include any inline citation for the name at page 53. He does have a "Sources" section at page 247, but it is not viewable online, at least by me. 68.189.242.116 (talk) 16:37, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • He only uses primary sources for that chapter (pp. 253–4). Avilich (talk) 16:59, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was a Titedius Labeo (2 "i"s, not 3) who was proconsul of Gallia Narbonensis during the reign of Tiberius; maybe the name was misspelled? -- llywrch (talk) 20:03, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The OCD's third edition (1996) entry for Servilius Casca (contributors Cadoux and Badian) says "A third Casca, with the praenomen Gaius, apparently from a gens other than the Servilia, was tribune in 44; alarmed at the fate of C. Helvius Cinna, he put out a statement asserting that he had nothing but the cognomen Casca in common with the conspirators." That implies no conspirator was called Gaius Casca. NebY (talk) 13:42, 9 July 2021 (UTC) That maybe drew on Cassius Dio 44.52.[1] NebY (talk) 15:43, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lean delete, the current article is in terrible shape and pretty much everything is original research. A Servilius Casca, brother of Publius, and assassin of Caesar, did exist. He was not named Gaius though. The question should mostly be about his notability. As he is only known in connection with his brother, I think he could be dealt with in the article about Publius Casca.
Alternatively, the article could be renamed Gaius Casca (tribune of the plebs, 43 BC). It would cover the life of the Casca unrelated to the assassins of Caesar who may pass the notability threshold, albeit not much can be said of him. T8612 (talk) 17:00, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The qualifier 'tribune of the plebs' probably wouldn't be needed. Though there's equally as little to be said about the tribune, aside from the anecdote quoted above by NebY. Avilich (talk) 18:09, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is a Gaius Servilius Casca, tribune of the plebs in 212 BC... although dubious. T8612 (talk) 18:13, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yep, I'm the one who added the dubiousness. He doesn't himself have an article, regardless. Avilich (talk) 18:14, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've contacted the Wikidata Rome project as well.★Trekker (talk) 17:25, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the original article was written by a user "Historian Blek", whose contributions consisted of this article, & edit-warring this personage into Assassination of Julius Caesar. "Titiedius" returned to that article due to the edits of an anon editor posting from an IPv6 address. If no convincing evidence can be found for "Titiedius", it might just be a hoax & any useful information in this article be merged into the one about Publius, or the entire article converted into a redirect to Servilia gens. -- llywrch (talk) 20:03, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yeeno (talk) 🍁 03:44, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This should just be deleted so everyone can move on more quickly. There are two editors in favor of deletion, the rest is just comments by people struggling to keep up with the reasoning, or simply drive-by remarks by editors who will never return here again after a few exchanges. There's nothing worth merging and the article subject itself is bogus. Avilich (talk) 14:47, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The comments so far have been informative and trying to make sense of this, stop being so rude.★Trekker (talk) 11:10, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... and those who will return will make silly comments like this. Avilich (talk) 13:34, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm completly justified in my comment. The so called "drive by editors" have all tried to the best of their abilities to solve why this article came to be and understanding that will likely help prevent more issues from rising again if anyone ever sites a bad source in the future misnaming this individual. Which is about 1000 times more helpful than just pushing a fast DELETE button on everything.★Trekker (talk) 08:09, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaving a bunch of comments lying around and not coming back consistently to address the points against you leaves each sub-discussion unfinished and gives the impression that the subject matter is more complicated than it actually is. The IP, for example, never came back to acknowledge my arguments against his source. There's also the first commenter, who is probably doing this deliberately. I have also not ever seen a 'merge' vote that's well justified, only as a proxy for those innately reluctant to support deletion. This all causes unnecessary delays and misjudgements, and 2 weeks for an unsourced stub of an article is an unreasonable duration by any standard. So, either commit yourself fully or not at all. If you're not prepared to defend your views, don't come in the way of editors who are more committed to improving the encyclopedia. Avilich (talk) 01:03, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • only a literal dead weight in need of spoon-feeding would disagree with such a common sense thing, but that's not such a far-off description considering my experience with you Avilich (talk) 19:48, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stop being rude just because people challenge your arrogant comments.★Trekker (talk) 21:23, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Avilich, Every comment above is pertinent in some form to this discussion. This is a very difficult deletion discussion, and so we're all trying to make sense of it so that we make the correct decision. Even I, a Romanist-in-training, can't really grasp this particular subject. Your crassness in this comment, as well as your shot at AfC in the beginning, are very rude and not appreciated. Curbon7 (talk) 09:07, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination and following careful examination above. We have good reason to think no "Gaius Servilius Casca" existed at that time and no good sources to say he existed and is notable. NebY (talk) 19:22, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. T8612 (talk) 14:31, 19 July 2021 (UTC) — Duplicate vote: T8612 (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above.[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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gaius_Servilius_Casca&oldid=1035011994"