Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erminethrudis


 * 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Dr. Universe (talk) 21:27, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Erminethrudis

 * – ( View AfD View log )

There appears to be nothing notable about this woman. Her name only survives because her will survives. Pepper Beast   (talk)  16:12, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:32, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:32, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:32, 15 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. "Her name only survives because her will survives" isn't nothing! She may not have been a particularly remarkable person but scholars appear to consider her will a valuable historical document. This could justify re-titling/re-framing the article around her will, or maaaaybe merging somewhere if we have a suitable longer target article on documents or inheritance or Merovingian women or I don't know, but the scholarship is there. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 16:56, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:GNG. She and the will have been written about by multiple authors, another one of whom I just added at the article. No objection to moving to Testament of Erminethrudis if others think that reframing the will as notable is best. 68.189.242.116 (talk) 17:15, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment good point.  Pepper Beast    (talk)  17:35, 15 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep I have just added more information. Can't help seeing the gender aspect of this. Huge amounts of research on women's history is being published all of the time, and when I posted this initially I hoped that it would be added to in time. She would have been a hugely significant character in the Paris of her time, a major landowner, and a significant player in church politics. (sorry if this isn't how you contribute to this page but couldn't find another way.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natalieben  (talk • contribs) 17:23, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You state above that you "have just added more information", but there is no corresponding edit to the article. I am pointing this out in the hope that your additional information was not saved for some technical reason and that you can add it again. 68.189.242.116 (talk) 16:44, 16 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:BASIC/WP:GNG and expand, without changing the title of the article, because she created the will, and a source that discusses the significance of her action, with biographical information and context, includes: Caring for Body and Soul: burial and the afterlife in the Merovingian world (Effros, Pennsylvania State University Press, 2002), and there is additional biographical information available in Framing the Early Middle Ages (Wickham, OUP Oxford, 2006). There also appears to be a variety of non-English sources available from Google Scholar. Beccaynr (talk) 20:49, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notability doesn't require great deeds or accomplishments: it requires significant coverage in independent sources, a requirement which Erminethrudis clearly meets given the extensive scholarly interest. pburka (talk) 21:04, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep An easy pass of WP:BASIC. See also WP:BEFORE. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:19, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Week keep and support renaming/rewrite. My glance at the sources suggest that while she may not be notable, the testament of Erminethrudis is a notable historical document. I'd suggest therefore that this article should be tagged for a rewrite (since there is no applicable merge target). PS. Not sure what is the applicable copyediting template for 'this needs to be rewritten/refocused', it may be easier (for the nom) to withdraw this, and then rewrite the article and move it. That said, User:Beccaynr seems to oppose such a solution. But unless the additional biographical information is significant, I think any notability she has is derived from the document, not the other way around. She is not important, what her document tells us about the ancient way of life is. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:51, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment To clarify my perspective, it appears to me that the document derives notability from who she was, and the sources highlighted in my comment above seem to help show that, and specifically, in Effros, the link includes, starting at p. 27, a discussion of her and her biographical information, and also states, "Erminethrudis's will demonstrates the far-reaching influence a widow might exercise in conjunction with her possession if no restrictions were placed upon her." Additional details of actions she took with her will are included at p. 196. The other source is Wickham, which at pp. 66, 68, 84, 123, and 233 discusses her vineyards and land, and apparently only notes her will as a footnote at p. 3802. Who she was appears to be covered in multiple independent and reliable sources, which to varying degrees also provide WP:SECONDARY analysis, synthesis and commentary on her life, the context, and her creation of the will. From my view, sources exist to support her notability as a person independent of the will that is relevant today because of what she accomplished during her life. Beccaynr (talk) 16:58, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * @Beccaynr Thank you for elaborating on this. You make a solid claim, although I remain concerned that there is not enough to be written about her to de-stub the article, without discussing the significance of the document. Ditto for the testament itself. In other words, we may have two highly overlapping articles (about her and about the testament). Wouldn't one article be better? And if so, what's more significant: her or her testament? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  03:23, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Cheers,, and I think the will is part of her biography, because it is something she did. There is another source (Bouchard, University of Pennsylvania Press, 2014) with more biographical information, that also states she "was clearly an important landowner." Also, it is currently unclear to me how much there is to say about the will that is independent from her, and sufficient to justify its own article - the significance seems linked with her biography, i.e. it is notable that a woman created a will during this time period. I have not yet found sources (at least in part because I have not attempted to translate non-English sources) suggesting the will is related to an independent legal principle, but I would consider that a stronger justification for an article focused on the will, if those sources emerge. In the meantime, her BLP will not be the most lengthy of articles, but I think there is enough to create a biography that includes her will and its significance based on the currently available sources. Beccaynr (talk) 05:48, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * @Beccaynr Fair enough. For now I just redirected the testament article to her bio; one article is justified, the other may warrant a 'categorized redirect'. We can revisit this one day if we end up with two nearly identical articles... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  07:06, 17 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. Beccaynr makes a good argument for why the testament is best contextualised in her biography, i.e. it wouldn't necessarily be notable if she hadn't been who she was. /Julle (talk) 11:03, 22 July 2021 (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.