Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Entichius

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 no consensus. with no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) czar · · 19:11, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Entichius

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

There was certainly no exarch named "Entichius". This name (or the variant "Entychius") is non-existent and clearly a mis-reading for "Eutychius" in some old (19th century and older) sources, but even so, the existence of an exarch of this name between the tenures of John Rizocopus and Scholasticus is an unlikely case. In Google Books, the only books mentioning such a man date to the 19th century and are of the A Handbook for Travellers in Central Italy variety, while the main primary source for the exarchs, i.e. the Liber Pontificalis, as well as more modern secondary works such as Hodgkin's Italy and her Invaders, the Cambridge Medieval History (both the old and the new), or more specialist works such as the PmbZ don't mention anyone between Rizocopus' death and the arrival of Scholasticus in 713, which is to be expected given the anarchy in the Byzantine Empire at the time. Indeed, the only Eutychius known to have been an exarch was the last holder of the office, who served after 727. Constantine ✍ 09:46, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 23:35, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what source I was using when I created this article years ago. My guess is Oman, The Dark Ages. Possibly Jules Gay. Srnec (talk) 22:17, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please have a look again? I'd really like to know what the story with this one is. There must be some reason why some authors interpolated an Eutychius after Rizocopus, after all... Do they draw upon a list compiled by someone in the 17th-18th century, who first made the "mistake"? Is there a primary source that mentions him? I find it really odd that he seems to be completely erased in more recent scholarship. Constantine ✍ 10:56, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See here. It seems to be a certain interpretation of the Liber pontificalis that places Eutychius in the gap between Rizocopus and Scholasticus. Srnec (talk) 06:56, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK then, it seems that this "Entichius" is the same as Eutychius, and the interpolation is regarded as unlikely. Hence we can delete the Entichius article and insert the relevant information in the one on Eutychius. Constantine ✍ 10:02, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 13:22, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 18:05, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:10, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:11, 22 June 2013 (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.