Deletion of Megullia Dotata

Comment: Megullia Dotata.  This is about as trivial a personage as is mentioned in the Roman record.  This person, whether mythical or real, receives only the briefest of mentions in sources that might be considered reliable.  Also, the otability|Notability guidelines call for "significant coverage" in reliable sources.  Significant coverage addresses the subject directly and '''in detail'''.  A brief mention or reference does not constitute significant coverage.  The available sources tell us nothing about this Megullia other than that she had a large dowry and that her father may have been Gnaeus Cornelius Scipio Calvus.  I do not think that every name merely mentioned in ancient sources is notable. Apart from that, the article is poorly written and, as others have noted, would need thorough investigation for plagiarism and accuracy.  The article as written, is clearly not completely accurate, because it refers to "Dotata" as a surname when it is clearly a nickname or agnomen.  Some of this material (e.g. the illustration of the trend toward large dowries in the late empire) might merit inclusion in the Dowry article after thorough investigation, but Megullia Dotata is not notable enough to remain as a separate entry. I don't know enough about the other articles listed by Wareh to comment on them
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: The articles provide multiple reliable and verifiable sources to establish notability. I also question the basis of the AfD in and of itself. Any history -- ancient, medieval or modern -- is subject to potential inaccuracies and biases. Ancient Roman histories are no freer from potential errors or bias, and we have no assurance that the current-day versions of what are believed to be ancient histories have not gone through edits and emendations that introduce falsehoods. Unless we restrict ourselves to using original copies of ancient Roman newspapers and magazines, we would have to cut out virtually all historical articles more than a few hundred years old. As stated at , "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." As long as the material is verifiable -- and it is -- the material meets the Wikipedia gold standard.  Truth is unverifiable
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)