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 delete. I've moved the article formerly at Valerius Maximus Basilius (urban prefect 319) to this title. —  The Earwig ⟨ talk⟩ 01:34, 5 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Valerius Maximus Basilius

Valerius Maximus Basilius (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)

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

This is one of several articles written by a now-banned user which requires a bit of complicated explanation for why it should be deleted. First, it is pure WP:GENEALOGY in all but the first sentence. Second, this individual is identical with Maximus (praefectus urbi). Third, he may in fact be a mixture of two distinct people.

To this 'Valerius Maximus Basilius' are herein attributed two state offices, each of which the Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire (PLRE, a standard source for a topic like this) assigns instead to two separate individuals, one to a 'Basilius' and the other to a 'Maximus' (this one has his own Wikipedia article already, mentioned above). The PLRE says they are 'perhaps' the same person or brothers, and their father 'may have been' Valerius Maximus (praetorian prefect), who in turn was 'presumably related' to Valerius Maximus Basilius (urban prefect 319) from the previous generation. The pattern of names in the (supposed) family obviously makes the current article name plausible, but the tone seems too speculative to decisively establish the article's subject as a historical individual.

What then, of course, do the article's own sources say? One was added only much after the article was created and mentions only the same Maximus (with the same speculative tone), adding nothing which was already written before. The remaining one, on which the article was based at its inception, is a dubious work of genealogy (Settipani) which makes some bold and sometimes (apparently, by my experience) flatly incorrect statements about family relationships of imperial Roman senators.

To sum up, it's far from certain (perhaps even unlikely) this individual existed in the way his sub-par Wikipedia article describes him, and what can be said about him seems to already be recorded at Maximus (praefectus urbi). Avilich ( talk) 18:18, 9 January 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:10, 9 January 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:10, 9 January 2021 (UTC) reply

• Oppose deletion, although the article may be in need of work. That the subject is intended to be the Praefectus Urbi between AD 361 and 363 seems apparent, and that makes him inherently notable, even if most of the rest of the information in the article is uncertain. The fact that most of the material is genealogical in nature does not make it unimportant or unreliable, although it might need to be carefully described as speculative. Christian Settipani is cited as a source in the lead paragraph, but looking over the page history it seems to have been the primary source, perhaps accompanied by an inherently unreliable genealogy page that has long since been deleted, the source for which is unknown and probably unknowable, although I suspect it would just have led back to Settipani. This person is certainly found in other reliable sources that suggest the possibility of at least some of the relationships in question: Inge Mennen is cited, and I can see the note on page 127 that mention the subject's possible descent from the late Valerii Messallae, and cites another source that I haven't checked. I didn't find this fellow in PW, but for a variety of reasons I can't conclude anything from that; it's very hard to search for someone whose correct nomenclature is unclear, and who might appear under several different headings or in any of multiple supplements. I don't have access to PLRE, but I did get a snippet view of Settipani, which suggests that the material we're after comes somewhere around pages 229 or 230—my snippet seems to be about this man's supposed father or grandfather. The question is whether Settipani sets these relationships in terms of certainty, probability, or mere possibility—something I can't determine without seeing the original text.

Nonetheless, even if the relationships in question are merely possible, as Mennen describes them, they would bear mentioning. Obviously had the subject not been Praefectus Urbi or held some similarly important Imperial post, such as being governor of Achaea, he might not be notable, and therefore his prospective relationship with the Valerii Messallae would not save this article. But whether the prefect and the governor are the same man, whether we're sure what his correct nomenclature is, and whether his relationship to other important persons has been established by Settipani or others, is claimed to have been established by credible scholars, is probable but unproven, or is merely speculative, it would still be appropriate content for this article, since clearly there are at least a couple of reliable sources that discuss it. His genealogy doesn't make him notable, but because he's notable for other reasons, and because his possible descent is relevant, it can properly be included in this article. P Aculeius ( talk) 14:42, 10 January 2021 (UTC) reply

This issue here isn't notability – as I said, the praefectus urbi of 361–3 already has its own article, Maximus (praefectus urbi). That Settipani sets these relationships in terms of probability or mere possibility is what I argued above. The obscure governor of Achaea is probably another person, and the nomen 'Valerius' is just assumed. The only Valerius Maximus Basilius we know existed for certain is Valerius Maximus Basilius (urban prefect 319), the supposed grandfather you must have stumbled upon. This article definitely needs a WP:TNT. Avilich ( talk) 16:13, 10 January 2021 (UTC) reply

WP:TNT is almost never the right answer. This is a very short article, and its content would be easily merged into the various persons to whom it applies who have their own articles, as Peterkingiron suggests. If we have articles about the prefect, the supposed father or grandfather, and other people who are likely related to him, the contents should probably be merged into those articles, which should then link to each other—then this title should redirect to the prefect or his homonymous predecessor. That's not the same process as deletion, but it should serve the purpose of this discussion. P Aculeius ( talk) 17:08, 10 January 2021 (UTC) reply

I had wanted to redirect Valerius Maximus Basilius (urban prefect 319) to Valerius Maximus Basilius, whence I started this discussion. If the latter is merged with (say) Maximus (praefectus urbi), you'd have an incorrect name as a redirect and I still wouldn't be able to perform the move. The only thing Wikipedia loses from deleting this article is a brief mention of some obscure guy under an incorrect name serving as proconsul of Achaea (without even a date...), which can easily be recreated (under the right name, Basilius) by a better informed editor than the one who created the subject of this discussion. Avilich ( talk) 20:21, 10 January 2021 (UTC) reply

• Merge or Redirect to Melania the Elder. My guess is that we know nothing else about him. Praefect and Proconsul are certainly important posts, but as far as I know, we do not have complete lists of these officeholders, let alone biographies. This article is essentially genealogical. We frequently redirect wives to their husbands. In this case I suggest we do the reverse. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:39, 10 January 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete once again. Article's subject is identical with Maximus (praefectus urbi), has basically nothing aside from WP:GENEALOGY, has a wrong title and is blocking a move from another page. Avilich ( talk) 01:08, 17 January 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete - This was quite a read so if I'm misunderstanding something don't hesitate to correct me. But, this article is meant to represent the person who was Praefectus urbi from 361-363, but what his exact name was is in question because of historically questionable sources, however this article represents the Praefectus urbi during those years and that's his claim to notability and why the article exists. However, there is another article, Maximus (praefectus urbi) that represents this person. Whatever his name may have actually been, we know that he was identified by his peers as "Maximus" so that's what this article article calls him. If I've understood those two facts correctly, then there's already an article for this subject, and anything that can be preserved should be moved to this other already existing article. - Aoidh ( talk) 03:20, 23 January 2021 (UTC) reply

  @ Aoidh: you are correct, sorry if I made the whole thing too long. Avilich ( talk) 13:47, 23 January 2021 (UTC) reply

  Well I think it needed to be a little long to explain the entire thing fully. - Aoidh ( talk) 04:49, 24 January 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete, as far as I can tell from this very confusing discussion, this article's content duplicates another article, and since it is not really a plausible search term as there are other Valerius Maximus Basilius', there is no point in a redirect. Devonian Wombat ( talk) 08:12, 25 January 2021 (UTC) reply
• Merge or (reluctant) delete There is some material worth salvaging from this article. One is the longer name, Valerius Maximus Basilius, which is typical of the 4th century; but without some source that attests that concatenation existed, it is speculative. (And all 3 name elements were very common in Roman society; it is not safe to assume where one appears the other 2 can be safely deduced.) Inga Mennen is a reliable source, so her suggestion that (Valerius) Maximus is related or descended from Valerius Maximus signo Basilius (the urban prefect of 319) should be saved. (NB -- the Valerius inside the parentheses shows that it is inferred, not attested.) But as for the rest... the fact that this article still contains much of the original author's text makes it very suspect. -- llywrch ( talk) 23:07, 29 January 2021 (UTC) reply

@ Llywrch: I've added what I think is salvageable into Maximus (praefectus urbi) – namely, his possible relationship or identification with another Basilius, him being the possible husband of Melania the Elder, his probable relationship with the two Valerii Maximi aforementioned, and the Inge Mennen source. I left out the bold and unsourced claim of his descent from the emperor Augustus' sister. Otherwise, there isn't anything else. Both articles claim their subject to be a nephew of Vulcacius Rufinus (cos. 347), making their identification certain. The current article still needs to be deleted, because the urban prefect of 319 is the only person who we know for sure was called "Valerius Maximus Basilius", and so should be moved to the target which the nominated article currently occupies. I can't do that while this discussion drags onward. Avilich ( talk) 00:47, 30 January 2021 (UTC) reply

@ Avilich: I modified some of that information at Maximus (praefectus urbi): whoever originally added the material from Ammianus Marcellinus botched not only the cite, but some of the content; since I own a copy of that Latin historian's work, I was able to correct it. And Ammianus is the ultimate source for the statement that Maximus was the nephew of Vulcacius Rufinus. (FWIW, I assume Vulcacius was his mother's brother.)

Anyway, the status of this discussion only touches on this article:, so if you want to rewrite the one on Maximus, AFAICS you are free to rewrite the heck out of it. But if you want to convert this article into a redirect to the urban prefect of 319, you may want to check & update the links to this article first: at least one -- part of that banned editor's monomaniacal pursuit to demonstrate Descent from antiquity -- is intended for the urban prefect of 361-363, not the earlier one. -- llywrch ( talk) 09:08, 30 January 2021 (UTC) reply

I also fixed most of the links already. The only ones that remain are those of the saints Melania I hear so much about; I was planning to do them after this article is deleted. Avilich ( talk) 15:17, 30 January 2021 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to Maximus (praefectus urbi), where the relevant salvagable content has apprently been added. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/ _{contributions} 07:42, 3 February 2021 (UTC) reply

  @ Patar knight: you're an admin, so please just close and delete this already. I didn't even copy anything to the other article, I just added similar information from a source not hitherto used. I need the current article's target for another page. Avilich ( talk) 17:51, 3 February 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.