Deletion of Vacis

Comment: First of all, the nominator's statement regarding verifiability is ungrounded in policy. The fact that a citation is imperfect does not at all mean that it is unusable -- most scholarly books have indexes, after all, and etexts are easily searchable. In this case, not only is the etext searchable at Google Books, but a basic Google search easily turns up the exact text cited. And other scholarly sources discuss the subject; there's even a scholarly debate over his identity https://books.google.com/books?id=7ndeDi_fwq0C&pg=PA436&lpg=PA436&dq=vacis+ostrogoth&source=bl&ots=4gI8oLGZ8I&sig=ACfU3U0njGS9zY4Xl5WOQpAnlXZGzh7jtw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjLmoW0pKrpAhVhgnIEHX_2BuUQ6AEwAXoECAoQAQ#v=onepage&q=vacis%20ostrogoth&f=false. Which makes clear that the nom didn't even make a pretense at complying with . Third, encyclopedias of classical literature and similar reference works cover figures like this (note the entry in the source I cited), making him a suitable subject for Wikipedia to cover. Finally, the groundless hostility the nom expresses toward the article creator here and elsewhere really makes this proposal inappropriate, particularly since the nom's invective about the article creator's skills is rooted in a gross, undeniable error about the quality of a source. (See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 May 10
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE)

Comment: I see that most keep votes target the nom instead of commenting on his arguments.  does not mean that you refrain from nominating if you find single line trivial mentions. The subject fails SOLDIER guideline. He was a commander in an ancient army, but is not known for any of his deeds, without any claim to fame, he is not notable enough. The only thing that all sources mention is that he reproached the Romans for foresaking the Goths
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE)