Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lapicini

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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 16:54, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lapicini

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

Article is one sentence, citing a single source, about a tribe in ancient Italy. Other than the mention of the tribe as having been subjugated by Rome (something of a given, considering its location), the tribe seems to have no other material on it; a Google search just generates Wikipedia mirrors. PROD rejected by (I believe) the original author.

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reasons:

Keep it's obvious that just a minimal search for sources was done by nom; a search at books shows no Wiki mirrors and more sources. I've added a second source to several, but these obviously meet the WP:GNG and are encyclopedic not dictionary definitions. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:52, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A perusal of the RSs in gbooks/gscholar show sufficient RS coverage, some of it going back well over a century (actually, at least to 1774, which perhaps is old enough to indicate some measure of lasting notability ... though I have a bit of trouble understanding that nearly 250-year-old source).--Epeefleche (talk) 20:33, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- All right, I did a deeper search, but a serious question comes up here (at least in my mind): Everything that I find seems to point back to a single passing mention by Livy (I went out and dug up the reference; he basically rattled off a list of tribes in a given area and said nothing more on any of them beyond noting their existence) and the other mentions are basically (again, from what I can tell) a regurgitation of "And Livy mentioned this tribe as well, among a number of others." Considering the limited mention in a single primary source, is this sufficient for notability?Tyrenon (talk) 21:27, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Livy is such an important source (because he's so well known, including by other sources) that something he mentions is likely to be a candidate for inclusion in Wikipedia. Even passing mentions in other sources demonstrate that other people care somewhat about the topic. Our notability guidelines are really meant to address contemporary subjects that don't get much coverage; it would be rather absurd to exclude ancient peoples who have been covered by one of the West's most famous historians. Nyttend (talk) 01:25, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and hope that some one can expand it one day. It is only a stub, but has two academic (if rather old) references. It is possible that the article is in fact complete, because nothing else is known. If so, we should just leave it alone, taking off the stub-tag. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:41, 18 February 2012 (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.