- 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 speedy keep. Was a WP:BEFORE done here? Liz Read! Talk! 19:38, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Jonathan Apphus
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Jonathan Apphus ( | 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)
The article does not have secondary sources as tagged for quite sometime now not meeting WP:GNG Serrwinner ( talk) 13:19, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 March 18. — cyberbot I Talk to my owner:Online 13:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 13:50, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Keep - Very clear keep of this important historical figure. AfD is not for cleanup of the sourcing. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 13:50, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Royalty and nobility, Israel, and Palestine. Skynxnex ( talk) 13:56, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep Improper nomination. TulsaPoliticsFan ( talk) 22:34, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. The subject is clearly notable; if the article needs secondary sources, feel free to add them. There is nothing wrong with citing to primary sources on historical topics; the need to add modern sources is not an argument for deletion, nor is there a deadline for improving articles. Deletion is not cleanup; you don't improve an article in need of improvement by deleting it. P Aculeius ( talk) 23:44, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Very obviously notable and meets WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 11:27, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Keep per User talk:Serrwinner #Roman AfDs, this is a pointy nomination of a clearly notable subject. FortunateSons ( talk) 14:06, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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 speedy keep. Was a WP:BEFORE done here? Liz Read! Talk! 19:38, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Jonathan Apphus
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Jonathan Apphus ( | 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)
The article does not have secondary sources as tagged for quite sometime now not meeting WP:GNG Serrwinner ( talk) 13:19, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 March 18. — cyberbot I Talk to my owner:Online 13:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 13:50, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Keep - Very clear keep of this important historical figure. AfD is not for cleanup of the sourcing. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 13:50, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Royalty and nobility, Israel, and Palestine. Skynxnex ( talk) 13:56, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep Improper nomination. TulsaPoliticsFan ( talk) 22:34, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. The subject is clearly notable; if the article needs secondary sources, feel free to add them. There is nothing wrong with citing to primary sources on historical topics; the need to add modern sources is not an argument for deletion, nor is there a deadline for improving articles. Deletion is not cleanup; you don't improve an article in need of improvement by deleting it. P Aculeius ( talk) 23:44, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Very obviously notable and meets WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 11:27, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Keep per User talk:Serrwinner #Roman AfDs, this is a pointy nomination of a clearly notable subject. FortunateSons ( talk) 14:06, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- 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.