Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Udo I

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 Delete. Fram (talk) 13:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Udo I

Udo I (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Non-notable biography; made up? Per WP:BIO and related to this article. Gary King (talk) 06:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Unsure, not that these pass RS but they appear to verify his existence. If he was indeed a Count, I believe that's notability. Question is whether his existence and 'counthood' can be verified. Until then, neutral. Travellingcari (talk) 17:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails verifiability requirements. Part of a series of stub articles created by the same user or two new users about supposed nobility who lived in the Dark Ages. Use references, or at least one solid reference to satisfy verifiability, or don't create the article. Too much opportunity for hoaxes if we allow the creation of stubs about a plethora of supposed nobles from that era. Once the existence of the person is proved, then we can start debating whether the person is notable enough for an encyclopedia article. I do not see that having a name and a title automatically proves notability, because the title might not have signified the same importance in that era. Edison (talk) 17:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Titles of nobility had considerably more importance in that era than now. matt91486 (talk) 17:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I question your blanket claim, and note that the title of nobility was doubtless different in the Dark Ages from that stated now, since the language was doubtless different. A "Count" might have been a "Village chieftain." Edison (talk) 18:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Graf is the article on German counts. I see no evidence for your assertion that it is equivalent to a village chieftain, so I'm going to assume you are operating on a purely hypothetical basis. Regardless of language differences, noble titles in modern society are essentially ceremonial, where as in the medieval period, it provided a degree of power and land ownership. So I feel fairly confident in saying that any medieval count is more important than any count today, simply because modern European countries no longer use Feudalism as a structure. matt91486 (talk) 19:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
    A "Chief" of a Native American community was sometimes described in European accounts as a "King" and his daughter of no noble pretension whatsoever might be described as a "Princess." The head man of a community or the warlord of a district in the year 700 did not have the same role in society as a Count or Baron in the 1400's or some other era. Note that the period of these articles is the Dark Ages, not the Medieval period. Few documents exist from the era in question. Much is supposition and legend and there is conflation of different individuals with the same name. There should be no such articles without reliable sourcing, and blogs do not count. We should not allow supposition to be entered into Wikipedia articles and thereafter cited as proof for someone's genealogical fancies or for unsourced histories. Edison (talk) 16:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • You're still assuming a lot hypothetically, here. I'm not saying this article would be easy to source, and certainly not with online sources, but it maybe could be done with a trip to a proper research library. It should be tagged with sources for a while first before outright deletion, because we do have loose evidence that he did exist. matt91486 (talk) 16:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
If there are two history books which present the person's name, dates and location, that would be a good start. But I want to discourage creation of lots of unsourrced stubs about supposed historical figures. If the article creator is looking at a book with the facts he wants to put in the article, then include the references at the start. That said, lots of genealogical "facts" from the dark ages were made up by writers in the medieval period hundreds of years later. Biographies which are not from contemporary accounts, should sometimes be labelled as "legendary," like the medieval accounts of King Arthur's court. Edison (talk) 16:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment These books seem to refer to this guy (search in them for "Udo") but they are rather vague and place him about a century later. There might be more here but I don't have time to do any more for now. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Le Jan has a family tree for the ancestors of the Robertians on p. 440 of Famille et Pouvoir, and this guy isn't on it. If you look at the seemingly well-referenced de:Popponen, that shows this supposed person's father with two sons, neither of them this chap. The fact that the other articles are chock full of doubtful material means we can't keep this in the absence of solid references. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Note. See WP:ANI#elaborate scam.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Especially in the light of this looks very much like a hoax. The connection to some other, even more dubious articles makes this by far the most likely explanation. --Hans Adler (talk) 17:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as failing WP:V. Bridgeplayer (talk) 19:15, 22 February 2008 (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.
Languages