Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Procopius (Romans)

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 redirect to Procopius (disambiguation). Seems to have been merged. Sandstein 11:55, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Procopius (Romans)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Procopius (Romans) (edit | 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 mostly redundant with Procopius (disambiguation). The page was originally created as another of the Roman gens articles, i.e. meets a particular definition of family from early Roman history, which is not the case here, so the rationale behind this article's creation was mistaken. Several of the listed individuals have nothing to do with each other save for name (WP:SHAREDNAME), and therefore belong in a disambiguation page rather than here. Avilich (talk) 23:13, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:23, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe the correct procedure would be to merge this with the other page—make sure that everyone listed here is listed there, if they fit the criterion of being named "Procopius", and make sure that any of the others can be reached from the related articles, then convert this title into a redirect. The title may still be useful, since disambiguation pages can be split, or this title might be used as a "prosopography page". Even if all of the content is redundant, merging is still the procedure to follow—the disambiguation page may need some revisions before converting this one into a redirect, and it's not clear that there's anything wrong with this title—at worst it still seems like a plausible formulation for the topic. P Aculeius (talk) 17:05, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Either deleting or merging might do, but search terms like this are inherently unlikely since one will either know the desired target beforehand or just type "Procopius" without the parenthetical specifier. The target is only called "Procopius (Romans)" as a result of your own belated move of it from "Procopius (gens)". I don't see this becoming a prosopographical page since shared personal name alone does not make an association of individuals notable (WP:SHAREDNAME), and the individuals on the bottom have nothing to do with the others anyway. Avilich (talk) 17:50, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I've merged the only missing entries to the dab page (just the two Procopius Anthemiuses). Clarityfiend (talk) 04:41, 27 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.