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. There are also several "merge" opinions, which can be taken up in a talk page merger discussion if desired. Sandstein 09:14, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eutropia (sister of Constantine I) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

WP:INVALIDBIO, no indication of non-WP:INHERITED notability, no WP:INDEPTH coverage in sources, too small per WP:SIZERULE (c. 1 kb), too few life facts known to deserve a standalone article. The single known event of her life, her death, is already covered in her son's article and elsewhere. Prod removed as usual without any explanation by some careless and inconsiderate editor. Avilich (talk) 15:27, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:39, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:39, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Nepotianus. Her having been recorded in history is only alongside Nepotianus and notability is not inherited. All content fits well in the main article, and other-language entries likewise fail to show independent notability, just describe a family tree, nor do we outsource our decisions to them. Reywas92^Talk 18:52, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not clear why Reywas92 has pushed their way to the head of this discussion. In any case, note that they were canvassed. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:08, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:CANVASSING#Appropriate notification: "On the user talk pages of concerned editors". Avilich (talk) 19:12, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I also 'canvassed' the page's creator, and he voted against my proposal, so the aggregate WP:VOTESTACK for me is 0. Avilich (talk) 19:15, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The subject appears as a significant player in numerous histories of the Roman Empire's game of thrones and so is clearly notable. As with many figures from antiquity, the information we have is limited but it has endured for millenia and so is very WP:LASTING. The worst case would be merger to another page but, as we are spoilt for choice, it is simplest and easiest to leave well alone per our policies WP:NOTPAPER and WP:PRESERVE. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:49, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The subject is definitely not significant and does not receive satisfactory WP:INDEPTH coverage in "numerous histories of the Roman Empire's game of thrones" (other than footnotes or sentences always briefly stating the same thing), otherwise the Realencyclopädie entry I linked for your convenience would have made it clear. NOTPAPER is about space limitations, which has nothing to do w/ this (though WP ideally shouldn't have 2-liner articles). LASTING also has no relevance to the discussion as an event needs to be notable regardless of age. PRESERVE is about encouraging improvement rather than dismissive deletion, but the very argument of this nomination is that improvement in this subject is impossible with the extant source material; in any case the information is already PRESERVEd in other articles (as stated in nom) and the article hasn't been improved in >10 years. None of the 3 WP guidelines you indiscriminately spammed support your case. Avilich (talk) 16:35, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The entry in the Realencyclopädie demonstrates the encyclopedic nature of the content. Notice that there is an equivalent entry in the German Wikipedia and in 10 other language Wikipedias. It would be absurd to turn this into a red link in the English language alone. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:28, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The RE is not only an encyclopedia but also a catalog of individuals, some of whose entries are mere one-liners and wouldn't be appropriate or notable enough as WP articles. I needn't tell you that notability standards for the RE and WP are distinct and that (German) WP is not a RS. Avilich (talk) 17:35, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brief entries of this sort are naturally appropriate for a reference work so that people can look them up easily and get the essential facts without having to wade through lengthy and rambling narratives. Wikipedia is such reference work because it is an encyclopedia. Long discursive articles for those wanting a long read or deep dive are welcome too and the point of WP:NOTPAPER is that we have room for both. The Realencyclopädie required lots of paper (right) but was created regardless. Now that we have no such constraints, we need no arbitrary and narrower limits. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:46, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, this isn't about constraints of space. I see nothing wrong with the current target being a redlink – especially since the only views the page gets are due to the recent deliberations about its deletion – but a redirect to thematically-similar Nepotianus is also acceptable. Avilich (talk) 18:00, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redlinks are problematic because they break things. For example, the page had a different title for most of its history since it was created in 2007. But it was moved just a few days ago without leaving a redirect. So now the original title is a redlink and this means that we are unable to access the readership history for most of this time. That's the reason that the readership is apparently low -- because creation of a redlink has broken it. Tsk. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:25, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Both targets are orphaned, it makes no difference. Traffic on the old target collapsed immediately after it was redlinked, so it is not something people would search for anyway, had it not already existed. Avilich (talk) 19:31, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I only said 'redlink' in the sense that it's inconsequential if this page is deleted, not that redlinks provide any sort of benefit. Avilich (talk) 19:37, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If it's inconsequential, then why did did Avilich create this page to make all this fuss about it? It's not clear what their point is but, be that as it may, be it noted that my !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:11, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Highly significant historical figure. Dimadick (talk) 16:33, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

can you demonstrate this? Avilich (talk) 16:41, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Nepotianus. My examination of the literature finds no significant coverage apart from her involvement in Nepotianus' attempted usurpation. It thus fulfills several of the criteria listed at WP:MERGEREASON: there's considerable overlap with the Nepotianus article, Eutropia's article is and likely will remain short, and merging the two would provide useful context in understanding the events. It's less of a notability question and more a question of the best structure for the reader. A merge would improve the structure without resulting in the loss of content. (Thus, WP:PRESERVE doesn't apply.) I'm glad to reconsider if someone can point out something – anything! – that Eutropia did independent of her son. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:23, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• She was an acquaintance of Athanasius, appears in his writing and so is discussed in works such as Athanasius and Constantius – Theology and Politics in the Constantinian Empire. Q.E.D. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:36, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Athanasius merely mentions Eutropia favorably in comparison to her killer, Magnentius, because he is defending himself (in a speech to her nephew, Constantius) from charges of treasonable correspondence with the latter. The source only speculates that they might've known each other, just like Athanasius may have known any other obscure member of the imperial family. Any conclusions taken here must be regarded as conjecture and original research. Avilich (talk) 17:52, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Even that appears to have involved Nepotianus: see this. While I'm sympathetic to your arguments, I'm finding it impossible to divorce Eutropia's actions from her son's. In such a situation, I think a merge would better serve the reader's interests. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:59, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As per above: "brief entries of this sort are naturally appropriate for a reference work so that people can look them up easily and get the essential facts without having to wade through lengthy and rambling narratives." Although the article will remain short, it is still useful for the reader to reach this basic information after a quick Google search which is one of the basic roles of Wikipedia and a reason for its popularity. Another reason for keeping is a potential for improvement which is lost if the article is deleted or merged. Our knowledge about a lot of ancient rulers, politicians and artist are similarly limited but it still reasonable to write articles about them because they were obviously important players in their time.Zello (talk) 18:50, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Yet another claim of importance and notability without citing evidence. Her notability rests on (1) relationship to other people, which is to be cited on those people's respective articles; and (2) her death, which is to be cited wherever it's relevant, i.e. her son's article and that of her killer. Avilich (talk) 19:03, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Members of ruling dynasties are generally considered notable persons, that's why we have articles about practically every Plantagenet princess or obscure members of the Japanese Imperial Dynasty. The fact that she was killed for political reasons adds to this notability, and people can be curious about the basic facts of her life. An independent article makes the scant information about her life more easily accessible.Zello (talk) 21:28, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia isn't a reliable source, many of those have far superior coverage than Eutropia, and there's no reason to assume that ruling dynasties in themselves constitute a threshold for notability in WP. If people are curious about the facts of her life, they'll know that she is related to important people, in which case they'll first be looking at the articles of those important people. They will most likely know of her existence only after that of her relatives anyway. The information regarding her manner of death also overlaps with Nepotianus (WP:CONTENTFORK). WP:INVALIDBIO, WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:INDEPTH still stand. There's also WP:SIZERULE, which states that articles in the region of 1 kb in size are too small to exist standalone. Avilich (talk) 23:59, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A late-antique empress of the Constantine dynasty is generally considered notable. Moreover she is a historical figure who was killed for political reasons and mentioned in several historic books [1]. VocalIndia (talk) 14:57, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• She is not an empress, just an obscure member of the imperial family like many others we know of and don't have articles for. And your lazy internet search only shows passing mentions in outdated sources; it in fact supports my original point that she doesn't receive significant in-depth coverage. Can someone at all address the original concern, as mentioned in the nomination? Avilich (talk) 15:26, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Nepotianus (leaving the usual redirect). Our knowledge of this period depends on a relatively small number of chronicles. The chances are that they say nothing much of her, except that she existed and had a son. This is not enough to merit a separate article. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:28, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The subject is a daughter of the Caesar, mother of a usurper emperor, executed for political reasons by another usurper. And what did you achieve, who put AfD? Jokes aside, I think her notability is obvious and Eutropia deserves an article. We can put a "stub", but I am against deleting and merging. Nobody is improving this particular article right now because there are thousands more articles in WikiProject Women that need attention. This is not a reason to delete or merge the article. Globydust (talk) 10:28, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Nobody is improving this article right now because this is the sum of information available about the subject, not because there is a dearth of editors. You'd have know this had you read the Realencyclopädie link I provided for your convenience. Your comment, as every single keep vote until now, relies exclusively on inherited notability or non-active participation in events (i.e. being killed), neither of which passes WP:INVALIDBIO and WP:INHERITED. There is, in fact, no shortage of non-notable imperial family members or other upper-class Romans who are obscure nobodies and don't deserve articles of their own. For example (it looks as I'm the only who has done any research at all into this), Eutropia's nephew, the emperor Constantius, executed most of his close extended family, uncles and cousins; some we know the name of, some we don't, and many of these don't and will never have articles. Your comment is basically a condescending repeat of the others I already addressed above. Avilich (talk) 17:02, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as above. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:34, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Avilich: Prod removed as usual without any explanation by some careless and inconsiderate editor. Please do not criticise another editor for doing what they are perfectly entitled to do. It was you who restored a deleted prod, which you are not supposed to do. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:40, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - if this were about someone from the 1940s or 1950s, then I would say that they do not meet WP:GNG. Even if they were from the 1700s, would probably agree with the merge votes above, but this type of referencing from millennia ago, passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:14, 23 March 2021 (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.