Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flávio Teodósio de Coimbra


 * 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.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 14:10, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Flávio Teodósio de Coimbra

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

This person is an invention of some medieval monks forging charters to push back the dates of their land tenure. As a fiction, he is non-notable. His only coverage has been as 'just another name' in a pedigree published in pre-19th century Portuguese genealogy works that are not considered to be reliable by modern scholars. He is a made-up person atop a made-up pedigree in long-marginalized sources and hence does not meet notability or verifiability (in reliable sources) standards. Agricolae (talk) 01:08, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 01:09, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete I can't confirm the nominator's statements, but neither can I find mention of an Iberian Flávio Teodósio in the course of a casual search of Google Books. -- ▸∮ truthious ᛔ andersnatch ◂ 16:20, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Just to amplify my original remarks, it was the Abbey of Lorvão that forged this material (note that all we supposedly know about his is how exalted a person he was, and that he made a donation to this abbey). As far as I am aware, there is not a single surviving authentic charter from this time period, and numerous modern Portuguese sources explicitly state that Hermenegildo Gutierrez was made the first Count of Coimbra in the late 9th century. He does appear in a few modern genealogical publications, but never as more than a bare name with title and dates in a lineage, not the kind of significant coverage that establishes Wikipedia notability.  Effectively, he is like Banquo would be if The Bard hadn't put him into a play - as a historical non-entity, he doesn't bear mention, it is only as a character in The Scottish Play that he is notable, and Theodosio has no such play to elevate him. The whole invented descent only owes some cache to the desire of credulous 18th century Iberian (and particularly Portuguese, for whom there are nationalistic implications) genealogists to trace their collective history and that of their noble families through the historical vacuum that is the Muslim conquest to the ancient political structures of the Germanic and Celtic predecessors, the same motivation that gave rise to the fabulous Welsh pedigrees, only the Portuguese inventions did not reach the public until after the local framework of legends had already arisen in the form of such tales as the Miragaia, and so did not receive a validation provided to the Welsh material by the likes of Geoffrey of Monmouth.  That leaves this individual as a historical non-entity who never became a notable of legend or literature, and only has received coverage as part of the longer pedigree, not for anything notable about him as an individual. Effectively, this is a 'one event' scenario, where that 'event' is a forged pedigree that is, itself, non-notable. The only other possible claim to notability, that he was Count of Coimbra, would not only violate the principle that notability is not inherited, but would ignore the fact that it is all made up anyhow.  Agricolae (talk) 15:40, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I should have explained better: I don't doubt what you're saying at all, in fact it sounds to me like your analysis of this is probably correct. I only said "Weak" because I lack the expertise to investigate this well and don't have access to the sort of sources necessary to more closely investigate any of the related subjects; (as Maragm !voting below clearly does) hence, I'm just expressing that my !vote is involving more guesswork on my part than it usually does in other AfDs on more mainstream topics. -- ▸∮ truthious ᛔ andersnatch ◂ 16:08, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * And just for clarity sake, my only reason for responding to your comment was that it brought home, for exactly the reasons you explain, how AfDs for topics unknown to almost all English-language editors can be a challenge due to the lack of cultural context, so a little more detail and some analogies to (perhaps) more-familiar similar instances in British culture couldn't hurt. (And yes, Maragm knows her stuff, and I am not just saying this because she agrees with me.) Agricolae (talk) 02:25, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete: Not verifiable in any serious reliable source. --Maragm (talk) 16:31, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong delete': I can't find any reliable trace of him. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:17, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete without prejudice Perhaps there are sources out there that would make him notable, but they would be rare and hard to track down. Delete per WP:V until such sources are found.  Them  From  Space  21:38, 30 May 2012 (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.