Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Euphraeus

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. ✗plicit 12:06, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Euphraeus

[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)

Nominating for deletion due to limited coverage in secondary sources - the philosopher here appears to be a name mentioned in Demosthenes. Secondary source in the article only mentions the person by name but says little about them - car chasm (talk) 16:25, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy and Greece. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:37, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For information, this is the secondary source that I cited when contesting WP:PROD deletion. It was only the first book that I looked at. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:44, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is loads more secondary coverage in the introduction to ISBN 3515083960, here, published by Franz Steiner Verlag and the second book that I looked at. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:53, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The second source does have more in-depth coverage, but I still think the philosopher is on the fence in terms of notability and should be discussed so I'm not going to early-close the AfD. The sources I found when I searched were more like the first one, which I do not believe qualifies based on the description and examples in WP:SIGCOV. - car chasm (talk) 17:15, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to be notable, as a figure involved in important historical events, mentioned and chronicled by notable writers. There is an argument that anyone from classical antiquity whose name has survived to the present day is notable; I wouldn't go so far as to say that they all deserve their own articles, but they can certainly populate lists and be mentioned in connection with notable people and events that do have articles. Here we have a figure whom several scholars, both from antiquity and modern times, have written about, which gives him a presumptive notability—but even if we doubt that for a moment, it would be difficult to find what is said about the subject in one article if it had to be merged into another, or split between all of the sources who discuss him. Is he even important enough to be mentioned in those articles? This question has nothing to do with notability—he may be perfectly notable, but not relevant enough to be mentioned in the biographies of every person whose life he touched or who wrote about him. It seems like this article is the only logical place to gather what is said about him. So both because his contributions to the times in which he lived and the various scholars, past and present, who have something to say about him, seem to indicate a degree of notability, and because it makes no sense to scatter the contents of this article among several others to which the subject is at best tangentially relevant, this article should be kept. P Aculeius (talk) 12:48, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Same reason P Aculeius gave. Teishin (talk) 21:29, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:23, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep P Aculeius has said it better than I could have. Atchom (talk) 02:25, 11 April 2022 (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.