Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avarigines

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:26, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Avarigines

Avarigines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

a google search shows no such term GusChago (talk) 13:24, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GusChago (talk) 13:24, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• comment @Gachago can you clarify your deletion rationale? I've added a citation to a dictionary/encyclopedia of the Celts. I find it hard to put in a vote without seeing the offline sources but this is no hoax. Oblivy (talk) 13:54, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Oblivy This needs the attention of an expert. I am sure when user translated the article, probably form spanish, they gave it a title of thgeir own creation because I never came across "Avarigines" and I couldn't find anything in the literature or via search engines. GusChago (talk) 14:22, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for your response. Given that there is now an English source using that term can you sustain your position that it’s a “title of [editor’s] own creation?” If that’s your objection, then I think this is speedy keep for lack of valid deletion rationale. Oblivy (talk) 00:20, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep, if borne out by the sources cited: however little we know of ancient tribes, they are inherently notable. I've done some cleanup left from the translation, for grammar, spelling, and flow, and worked on the cited sources, moving long-form citations to the bibliography. Will try to check Pomponius Mela, since he's the ultimate source, and if the citation to him is correct, then it's probably fair to assume the other citations are good—I couldn't check the last one at all, though it looks like it might be the most useful of the secondary souruces. P Aculeius (talk) 12:59, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Pomponius Mela does mention them as described, and I've linked the citation to an edition that notes the substitution of "Autrigones" for "Avariginos". So yes, speedy keep. P Aculeius (talk) 13:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - people(s) mentioned in ancient texts are almost always notable. Bearian (talk) 14:26, 8 April 2024 (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.