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. (non-admin closure) Shawn Teller (talk) 23:06, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Archdeacon Theophylact[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)

No refs on the page for many years. I don't see much in terms of RS - a couple of refs have single lines on the subject. JMWt (talk) 11:31, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Religion, Christianity, and Italy. JMWt (talk) 11:31, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Swedish Wikipedia article cites 2 sources, and the Italian article cites another. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 12:32, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ficaia. Mccapra (talk) 12:58, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the Swedish Wikipedia has two references. The first is the Oxford Dictionary of Popes which offers several Theophylacts but only one sentence to the person under discussion here (page 92). The Italian and Swedish Wikipedia both also cite a book called I papi, storia e segreti.. - where the subject is mentioned once by name in passing on page 227. Neither of these references meet the requirements of notability on en.wiki.

Simply noting that other wikipedia have references is not somehow a magic bullet which shows that notability issues are proved here. JMWt (talk) 13:27, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ok but he was an antipope. There are many early popes about whom we know very little but we don’t deem them to be non notable. Mccapra (talk) 21:11, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is not my area, but as far as I understand he is not considered an antipope. Not listed at Antipope and according to one of the sources I was reading for this discussion, is not considered an Antipope by the relevant authorities in Rome. JMWt (talk) 07:25, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, although could be turned into a general article on the 757 papal election. See, e.g., Thomas F. X. Noble, The Republic of St. Peter: The Birth of the Papal State, 680–825 (University of Pennsylvania Press, 1984), pp. 193–194. Srnec (talk) 03:00, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually that reference says more about Theophylact than anything else I've read - and yet it is arguably only talking about him (Theophylact) several times in passing. We learn almost nothing about him as a person, but only as a named opponent in the 757 election. Personally I don't see that this can be used as an argument for !keeping this page, and there is barely enough for a stub of 757 papal election. If that page already existed, I might support a redirect and merge of this one. JMWt (talk) 07:33, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See here for more on 757 and its significance. Definitely worth an article; probably should just be this one. Srnec (talk) 06:27, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That makes little sense. You are arguing for !keep of a stub page for a figure who is essentially unknown (because there is little to find in any of the sources that name him) on the basis that some other event with which he was associated is notable enough to have a WP page. There's nothing much here which would be lost if the page was !deleted. If you wanted to write 757 papal election that's got nothing to do with the !delete or otherwise of this page - other than this guy's name will be lost from the encyclopedia. JMWt (talk) 10:46, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or repurpose into an article on the Theophylact family, who appear to have been nobility active in Rome in this period, as the source found by Srnec shows: Rome, Ravenna, and Venice, 750-1000: Byzantine Heritage, Imperial Present, and the Construction of City Identity, by West-Harling, Veronica. It may well be that we know next to nothing of this individual, apaert from him contesting the election. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:06, 18 March 2023 (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.