Talk:Gisela, daughter of Charlemagne

Untitled
What is the claim to notability of this person? Other than the bare bones of dates and parentage, we are told nothing but that little of her is known, and that she is often confused with her aunt. That is the very definition of non-notable. 06:38, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * 7 years later Google books has progressed enough to be able find significant referencing on this person, and clues to further historical sources. A den jentyl ettien avel dysklyver  15:49, 28 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Not everything found on Google Books is reliable, a handful of passing references don't establish notability. Agricolae (talk) 21:20, 28 September 2017 (UTC)


 * 1000+ year old figures, mentioned in dozens (and possibly quite a bit more due to variant spellings and non English) of sources are generally notable.Icewhiz (talk) 21:31, 28 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Says who? Not the GNG, not if they are all just passing references. Just as someone can not be too old to be notable, there is no magic date where if you lived before that time, you are notable by default. Agricolae (talk) 21:45, 28 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Says editors not obsessed with there AfD record. A passing reference is one which requires you to do original research to identify the subject, that is not the case here, you should be aware the standards for inclusion are diffrent for different time periods, and I doubt you even read that latin treatise. A den jentyl ettien avel dysklyver  22:04, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Problems
I have put a general problem banner at the top, but I wanted to give a more explicit critique: Reliable sources - citing self-published books (ie. Lulu.con publications) or web pages doesn't wash Failed verifiability - way too may cases of just citing books that came up on a search using the words Gisela, daughter, and Charlemagne, some of which aren't even referring to this person at all; you can't use a book that says she was born in 781 as citation for her death date - it actually has to say when she died; you can't say that there is speculation about Gisela's propriety at court and just reference it to a list of Charlemagne's daughters - that is a specific claim and it requires a specific reference. I had to assume that the links provided pointed to the relevant pages - this is not really the best way to do citations, using Google Books search URLs instead of page numbers. Original research/weight - even a claim that 'she has been subject of several fictional works' has to be based on a source that says that. It is Original Research to draw that conclusion on your own. Just because these trash-fiction books exist does not make their existence notable unless a WP:RS source noticed them. Excessive citation - it is unnecessary to cite four sources to document her baptism, all making the same passing reference to it, when one alone contains all of the information and the other three add nothing additional. The same goes for her being daughter of Charlemagne and Hildegarde: a single reliable source suffices, but what we have here are two references to tables of contents and one to a self-published web page. Relevance - the marriage negotiation regarding her sister is not relevant to Gisela unless a source says it is. You may assume that if they negotiated regarding one daughter, they may have for another, but that is your conclusion, not something verifiable. Agricolae (talk) 22:28, 28 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I have reverted the tag you placed, I suggest you refrain from editing the article while the AfD is in progress. Regarding your assertions to the poor quality of the article, I would suggest you create an alternate version in userspace should you wish to demonstrate your points. The links provided do not link to the relevant pages in most usage on this article, I suggest you read with more detail. Many of these sources have been supplied as convenient translations of latin works, which you are welcome to persue should you doubt the verifiability of the content. A den jentyl ettien avel dysklyver  22:36, 28 September 2017 (UTC)


 * What you have done is a blatant violation of WNTRMT. I would love to see the part of Wikipedia policy that says you get to put anything you want in an article, no matter how poorly sourced, but anyone else has to suggest their alternatives in userspace then get your permission to make the edits in mainspace.  As to providing links that point to irrelevant pages, why do you think this represents appropriate citation use?  Citations should always identify the relevant material - citing an entire book with the implication that the reader should find the relevant content themselves or just take your word for it is insufficient.  As to the Latin sources, those would be primary sources, and Wikipedia has a policy on using them too (in general, it dissuades from using them).  The article has severe sourcing problems, as seen by the many tags. The appropriate way to address them is to address them by fixing the problem, not using the revert button to simply make the problems 'go away'. Agricolae (talk) 23:04, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

If you guys don't mind, this has left the realm of the article is obviously about editor behavior, therefore I suggest you move the conversation to your respective user talk pages. It appears you have some community-sourced concerns regarding your behavior with this article which should also be addressed on your talk page. Drewmutt ( ^ᴥ^ ) talk  07:33, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

I do not quite understand the concerns and would appreciate more detail than your comments that allt he sources are self-published passing mentions. I say there are no significant issues with the page, you say otherwise, I am perfectly happy to argue the merits of the individual sources with you, along with specific claims about the content. Any questions I am happy to answer any questions about any problems etc. Regarding the Latin sources, I am astounded that what are probably the most reliable sources, ie. those from the time, and which most other sources are based on, are discouraged by policy, I even thought that the sources didn't have to be in English.

Disregard the personal issue, I simply don't think that someone should nominate a new article for deletion and then either remove most the content and/or tag it with every issue on the twinkle list. You are welcome to point out the issues on the AfD, which is encouraged, or improve the article, which is encouraged, but not even I would stoop as low as to unduly bias the formation of a consensus by actually removing the content ad sources being discussed, regardless of whether they are passing mentions or have issues. Because if you unilaterally get rid of them, how are people supposed to discuss them? I don't see the need to dramatize this, I am simply asking that no involved person makes significant edits to the page during the AfD. I also cannot see the merit of adding maintenance tags, you have already tagged it with an AfD which makes the rest of your tags redundant (and something i would liken to drive-by tagging, not all tagging is helpful). But I think given the circumstances Both of us should refrain from editing the article for the moment, hence my comment of using a sandbox to demonstrate the edits first. Obviously you can, and might want to, update the AfD nomination reasoning given the additional concerns you have raised, in lieu of tagging it. A den jentyl ettien avel dysklyver 10:02, 29 September 2017 (UTC)


 * As per your request (well, sort of) I have made individual edits explaining each one so it is clear what the problems are, individually rather than collectively, and thus there is no reason to collectively revert them. No, I will not refrain from editing during the AfD period unless you revert all of the controversial additions you have made since it started. 'I have it the way I want it, so now you should stop and I will too' doesn't wash.  As to the AfD and tags being redundant, that is just wrong - it i not redundant, it is complementary.  The AfD is about notability.  The tagging is about the slipshod citation, false citation, etc., that are muddying the AfD, and will still be awful when the AfD is done if it isn't fixed.  The goal during an AfD (if editing in good faith), is not to disguise the problems but identify them, address them, and thereby improve the page so its true merits can be better evaluated in the AfD discussion - pages that are tagged, then fixed, have a better chance of surviving the process than those that retain glaring problems and every attempt to fix is reverted.
 * As to the Latin, sources don't have to be in English, but whatever the language, pages are not to be based on primary sources. We don't read Alcuin and summarize what he said, we read Bouchard (or in this case, Riche) and summarize what she said about Alcuin's reference to Gisela.  In general, you only cite a primary source as a backup to a secondary source, and even then it us usually superfluous, as it was here (a citation to a primary Latin source, without a page number, is all but worthless - for that matter, the same applies to any book). Agricolae (talk) 20:17, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Serious problems with sourcing ...

 * This is a self-published source from lulu.com. Not reliable. It also doesn't support the information it's sourcing "Gisela, often styled with varied alternate spellings, (c. 781 - 808 or later)"... as it very definitely says she died IN 808. Nor does it mention any alternate spellings. And really - a source that gives a surname as "deCarolingian" for Charlemagne? REALLY?
 * "was a daughter of Charlemagne from his marriage to Hildegard." is sourced to two indexes and medieval lands by Charles Cawley. I suggest searching on Medieval Lands at the WP:RSN to see that the source is not considered to be the best possible. I'm not seeing how the two indexes support that Gisela was also Hildegard's daughter
 * "Gisela was named after her paternal aunt Gisela, to whom Charlemagne was particularly close." is sourced to this, but that page does not support the information given. what the source says is that Charles the Bald (who is NOT Charlemagne) named his daughter Gisela "for his sister (and a series of aunts)". Nothing about it being Gisela's paternal aunt nor that Charlemagne was particularly close to Gisela's namesake.
 * "She was baptized at the Basilica of Sant'Ambrogio in 781 by Thomas, Archbishop of Milan." is sourced to a primary source, which is not needed. Nor are three other sources needed. At least they support the information given, however.
 * "She was educated at the castle in Aachen. Her tutor there was Alcuin. She was particularly interested in astronomy." is sourced to this. At best is sorta supports the astronomy - there is nothing in that source that supports the studying in Aachen or that her tutor was Alcuin.
 * "Like her sisters Bertha and Rotrude, Gisela never married, as her father feared losing political influence by such an alliance. Rumors circulated in the royal court about impropriety of Gisela and her sisters." is sourced to this, this, and this. The second one is not exactly the best source and it only mentions Gisela once anyway. It does nothing to support the sentence given. The first source says that Charlemagne MAY have feared losing political influence if his daughters married. But ... it doesn't state that outright as the article's sentence does. Nor does it say Gisela never married. Nothing about rumors either. The third source doesn't support the information either - it just says Gisela went with her parents somewhere.
 * "It is not definitely known whether Gisela was ever betrothed." is sourced to this and an offline source. The online source given does not support this information at all, as it doesn't actually mention Gisela daughter of Charlemagne at all. There is a mention of Pippin's daughter Gisela and Charlemagne's daughter Rotruda, but not Charlemagne's daughter Gisela.
 * "There are conflicting reports regarding her death. While some sources state 808, others state that in 814 she was sent to a convent by one of her 3 brothers, Louis the Pious." is sourced to this and this, neither of which support "There are conflicting reports regarding her death. While some sources state 808". And as a side note, the second source is actually Einhard's Life of Charlemagne which has been reprinted by someone at lulu.com. And the first is actually a reprint of this work from 1898 so we're not exactly dealing with current scholarship.
 * "Although little detail is known about her life, she has been written about in most treatises concerning the Carolingian dynasty, and appears as a character in several recent works of fiction." is sourced to this, this, this, and . Those four links are to the "about" pages for four fiction books. Nothing in those four links supports "Although little detail is known about her life, she has been written about in most treatises concerning the Carolingian dynasty".
 * All in all, I find a lot of problems with th is article. Much of the infromation in it is not actually supported by the sources that are supposedly supporting it. I don't think the article needs to be deleted, but it is not based on reliable sources nor is it actually well sourced. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:44, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It needs work. Part of the complication here is the multiple Gisdelas - which makes finding her specifically more difficult. Alcuin was reffed at least at some point - there are multiple possible sources for this one. Regarding the death date - I haven't seen a source discussing this. There are however multiple different dates in the sources. A better secondary discussion of this would be better - but at the moment we have a few different sources each stating something else (or not being definite at all - ranging from 808 to 814, to being alive in 814 (with death unspecified) and sent to a nunnery).Icewhiz (talk) 12:57, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it needs a bit more than just work. For starters, it should have all the above tagged in the article as being not supported, but given the fact that the last editor who tried to tag the issues in the article got templated for vandalism ... I'm not exactly enamored of the idea of restoring the tags. May I suggest that the best way to approach this article's sourcing is to ... read some books on the subject. Sourcing by google search is not the best way to approach subjects like these where there are many people of the same or similar names in the historical record. I'd start with a good recent biography of Charlemagne... that's likely to have the current scholarly views on his daughters. And an 1898 source is outdated and shouldn't be used. There's enough scholarship on the Carolingians that relying on 120 year old works is not needed. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:03, 29 September 2017 (UTC)


 * It has been suggested that a workaround is to merge this into page on multiple people, so if anyone finds a good biography I would be interested. Dysklyver  15:32, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Good job
While there are many issues noted above, the users opposing the deletion nomination should be commended for doing it the right way. I see flaws (and attempt to correct them), but I also see a lot of effort. Perhaps we should nominate more articles for deletion. Surtsicna (talk) 16:08, 29 September 2017 (UTC)