Talk:Alkimachos of Pydna

Deprodding pending revision/merger

This article was proposed for uncontroversial deletion, and after looking at it I think that, while there's not a lot of room for expansion (other than to explain the subject's significance), there's still content here which belongs in some sort of article, if not here then under another article, such as one on the Aeacidae or a list of persons named Alcimachus (I think that would be the better title than the current one; that's how this name is usually rendered in the Latin alphabet, and it's also so given in this source.

Normally someone with so little biographical information would indeed be non-noteworthy; but there is an argument that anyone from classical antiquity whose name has survived is at least somewhat noteworthy. I'm not sure if I fully subscribe to that as a doctrine, but I think there are places on Wikipedia where information of this kind for individuals not important enough for their own articles can properly go. Such as a list of Aeacidae, or a list of persons named Alcimachus (there already is a sort of list of Alcimachi, but it's a disambiguation page and so shouldn't normally have details like sources or discussions of significance; I think you could easily get at least a short paragraph here just by explaining who the Aeacidae were and why being a descendant of Olympias was potentially important and/or dangerous). Besides which, being a member of that line is somewhat noteworthy, IMO. I know you could make a slippery slope argument (not all descendants of Thomas Jefferson are noteworthy), but as this is a topic of classical antiquity, I think that's unlikely in this instance. Probably every Aeacid could be mentioned somewhere with some explanation without burdening Wikipedia with cruft.

Anyway, the material deserves to be salvaged, but not necessarily as its own article, and not necessarily under this title. P Aculeius (talk) 18:07, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

In general, I agree that there is an argument that anyone whose name we know from before the Christian era has a presumption of notability sufficient for inclusion in Wikipedia, if not necessarily for an article. Perhaps the best solution would be to expand the article on the Aeacidae and merge this there. Dynastic articles aren't really my area of interest, but maybe I'll have a poke about and see what I can come up with. Having a nose around Category:Ancient Greek families, Aleuadae looks like a potential model? Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:49, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that's probably the best idea, expanding the article on the Aeacidae, perhaps by adding a section with a list of members, each of whom could properly be allocated two or three lines, linked to their individual articles if there's more than can reasonably fit in that amount of space. That's more-or-less my approach with Roman gentes; general information about the family, its origin, traditions, and branches, followed by a list of members, which can contain anything from emperors to people known only from a single inscription. Once the information is transferred over there, this could be converted into a redirect. P Aculeius (talk) 04:04, 4 May 2017 (UTC)