Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ivo grandmesnil

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 of the debate was keep. bainer (talk) 08:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ivo de Grandmesnil

Note -- I changed the article title since this has been included by Samir and is the "main" article. --Lambiam^Talk 10:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

This may very well fall under speedy deletion, but I thought I'd go for a regular article for deletion request since the article has somehow been able to survive for over six months. Anyway, this appears to be either a biography of a non-notable person, a hoax, or a combination of both. It doesn't seem to make much sense either. But like I said, this article has survived for six months; did it just go unnoticed or is there something I'm missing? joturner 03:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

The following article was also added to this article for deletion request since the two subjects appear to be related:

• Ivo de Grandmesnil added to this AfD -- Samir धर्म 03:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Ivo de Grandmesnil. Seems like the same person. -- Samir धर्म 03:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I did notice that after I put up the article for deletion request. But looking at even that page, it seems like Ivo de Grandmesnil is not notable. Looking at the link provided in the article, it seems like someone was just tracing a family tree. A Google search yields equally questionable results. joturner 03:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, I should have looked harder. No vote for now, I'll look more into this person. I've added Ivo de Grandmesnil to the Afd. -- Samir धर्म 03:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Use quotes in the search. This Google search produces less than 50 total results. Also, Delete. --Flyne 03:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

But this quoteful search produces 528 hits. --Lambiam^Talk 10:52, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

And here are another 109 hits. --Lambiam^Talk 11:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete both. Seems only notable as son of Hugh de Grandsmesnil. Deserves a mention in that article, and he has one already -- Samir धर्म 03:55, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable enough to have an article of his own. --Srikeit^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 05:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete both per comments above, though I'm not sure google test is appropriate for someone from the eleventh century. --Chaser (T) 10:29, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Google test is totally inappropriate. What is the point in deleting this definitely encyclopedic information? --Lambiam^Talk 10:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, the only notable thing he's done is mentioned in an article for somebody else. See comments above. --Chaser (T) 11:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand this. Which only notable thing? Rebelling against William Rufus? Being the High Sheriff of Leicestershire? Protesting against Henry's irregular seizing of the throne of England? And what is the "article for somebody else" where this is mentioned? If this was happening today, there is no question at all this person would be notable. Should we apply more strenuous rules for the Normans? I really don't get it. --Lambiam^Talk 11:32, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Here is a somewhat random example of another "nn" entity: Maria Bagrationi, with only 2 unique ghits not going back to Wikipedia. The only notable thing she did is marry other notable people. Delete? No, of course not. The cool thing of an encyclopedia is that you can find this kind of information there. --Lambiam^Talk 14:05, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Well the only significant thing he did as an individual is inherit things from his father (3rd par.) Everything else he did in a group, albeit sometimes small groups. I don't think it's notable to be "among the barons supporting the claims of Robert Curthose against his brother Henry I" (emphasis added). If you can explain to me why he's notable enough to keep as anything other than a redirect, then I'll change my vote. I think Maria Bagrationi is clearly more notable for her patronage of monasteries, among other things.--Chaser (T) 23:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Apparently the editors of the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography regard him as important enough to give him an article. up+land 07:45, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, obviously. I would encourage the nominator to reevaluate his original nomination, as we are no longer discussing the same text. up+land 12:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, only possible claims to notability are more appropriately listed elsewhere in articles more notable. Fails the google text, and per arguments put forth by above editors. --ForbiddenWord 12:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

So where are they listed? --Lambiam^Talk 13:40, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

He is mentioned at Hugh de Grandmesnil as his heir. Anything pertinent should be added there, IMHO, as Ivo's own notability has not in my opinion been satisfactorily established. --ForbiddenWord 14:23, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per strong agreement with Lambiam's arguments, and I would also ask why the Google test is considered relevant for one who died in 1102? A reasonably convincing argument could be made that a person born (~) 952 years ago passes the Google test with ghits > 1. This person's notability has been consistently documented since the first crusade.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Col tom 12:57, May 26, 2006 (UTC). Ah, bugger. Forgot to sign. Colonel Tom 13:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per User:Lambiam, User:Col_tom and User:Uppland; Google tests are complete bollocks in this instance. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:52, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I think the article is worded a little strangely, but I think "he inherited the town and castle of Leicester and additional estates, assuming the title of Sheriff of Leicester, and becoming master of Earl Shilton manor" means he became Earl of Leicester, or at least a high ranking nobleman of some kind. We have articles on modern Earls that have done nothing notable other than be the son of someone that also did nothing notable other than be the son of (repeat a few times) someone that was made an Earl. This guy is notable. --Tango 15:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

It would be called High Sheriff now; see the (red link) to High Sheriff of Leicestershire in List of Shrievalties. See also the listing of Godric the sheriff (what's his claim to notability?) in High Sheriff of Berkshire. --Lambiam^Talk 15:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep I fail to see why Google is preferred as an authoritative source over the Oxford University Press Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, which is the reference provided in the article. Tyrenius 15:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Medieval figures that are still remembered today are notable by that fact alone. Agree that Google is far from an authoritative test of the notability of pre-Internet figures who lived before standardized spelling. Smerdis of Tlön 16:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep per arguments above--Nick Y. 18:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as ye olde English nobility Bwithh 19:16, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep per Tyrenius. --Eivind^t@c 23:05, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Never will I understand the mad reliance on Google rather than reading what the article actually says, when it's a bald statement of facts. This is an article about someone who clearly was one of the ten or twelve most powerful men in England when it was going through a major change in character; and his story feeds into the local history of Leicester nicely. Why delete it? Its encyclopaedic. Hornplease 07:24, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 18:51, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and wikify. The google test is irrelevant to historical figures. Google scholar and google book tests are somewhat more relevant, but never dispotive towards deletion. The facts of life in the middle ages mean that most nobles are notable. Involvement in a dispute about royal succession is notable. Participation in the first crusade is notable (nobles who crusaded were generally leaders). GRBerry 00:37, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

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.