Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heinrich I Heimo


 * 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) 13:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Heinrich I Heimo

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable biography, per WP:BIO. Gary King (talk) 06:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Adding similar article by hoax-intending editor. See my comments below-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 02:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * There are assertions of notability here. The lack of sources is problematic, but it seems that the individual may well have been notable. matt91486 (talk) 06:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment For all we know, it may have been made up. The apparent father of this person is an article created by the same person that created this one, and the subject of that article has no ghits besides the Wikipedia article. Gary King (talk) 06:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That's why I just commented instead of saying keep. But solely relying on google hits from someone from the 700s is hardly a fair judge. matt91486 (talk) 15:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * ' weak keep if sourced . Keep, since the source does appear to be fully adequate. See below The position is certainly notable, but we do needsome kind of evidence. If its real, it will be in the relevant histories for the period. DGG' (talk) 09:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * unsure as above with Articles for deletion/Udo I, we need to be able to verify position. Udo has some sources attesting to existence, this one has far fewer. Travellingcari (talk) 17:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails verifiability requirements. Part of a series of stub articles created by the same user 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 as translated might not have signified the same importance in that era. Edison (talk) 17:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * As I said to your identical comment on other articles, nobility titles were generally more significant in this time period than in the present day. matt91486 (talk) 17:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Since they did not speak English in the 700's the actual titles probably were not "Count" or "Baron." Medieval titles of nobility might be retroactively and inappropriately applied to some one who was the warlord of a village or whose mud hut had the most goats tethered outside. Edison (talk) 16:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - this geneaology seems to show his existence. Obviously this isn't a good source, but it at least challenges the accusation that it might be a hoax. matt91486 (talk) 17:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Reliable sources are needed to prevent supposition being enshrined as "fact" in Wikipedia, complete with succession boxes. If these people were notable in the 700's, they should be sourceable to books from respected publishers. I would exclude as sources family genealogy self published books and websites, but a website which lists its sources is a great place to steer you to the actual source, which should be verified directly (not cited here based on someone's website claiming the source exists.). Edison (talk) 16:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete As with Ruthard, I tried and failed to satisfy WP:V on this and failed using a variety of spellings. Going by the article the importance would be such that sources should be easier to find and many contemporaries are. --Dhartung | Talk 11:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 'Comment Edison, the medieval title comes = Count was in use in the 8th century. Warlords of villages are exactly the sort of people who became nobility, given some success at it. Given that there is evidence that he historically existed, he was notable. BBKL is a standard reference, now on the Web like many, but a reliable published source. I changed my !vote to keep, after examining it. You are apparently opposing the accuracy of a standard academic reference on the basis of your own personal imaginative view of history.  DGG (talk) 18:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment &mdash; sorry, where is he in BBKL? I can't find him either under this name or Heimrich.  &mdash; Laura Scudder &#9742; 16:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I can find this person in Regine Le Jan's Famille et Pouvoir dans le monde Franc, which indexes him as Heimrich, count of the Oberrheingau, son of Cancor (aka Ruthard in German?) and Angila. Le Jan has a moderate amount to say about him, certainly enough for a modest article of 2k to 3k by the time some minimal context is added. I think there is also information of relevance in Gockel's Karolingische Königshöfe am Mittelrhein, but I do not have access to a copy of that so far as I can tell. Our man here is not a towering figure in C8th Frankish history, but there is far, far more info available on him than is needed to write a decent encyclopedia article. Delete this or not, but sooner or later we'll have an article on this man and his even less important pa. Seems like it would be a bit dim to delete this, however much it needs fixing. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Right. WP is not limited to "towering figures." If in present days we put in people like members of state or provincial houses of representatives, or small-city mayors, or medium-sized city city councils, all as a matter of course, we should include the equivalent. this makes it very easy, actually--people below that level almost never get included in secondary historical sources for early periods. DGG (talk) 00:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Does de:Robertiner agree with your sources?  It's got Heinrich as Heimrich, the father Ruthard as Rupert (Cancor), and grandfather Richbold as Rupert (Robert), with quite different titles than our articles claim.  &mdash; Laura Scudder &#9742; 16:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This leaves the article seeming very speculative and the stated facts with questionable verifiability. Can spomeone with access to the stated reference works boil it down to sourceable facts, with the actual names as used in the reference? Edison (talk) 19:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - based on above comments. John Carter (talk) 15:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong keep. The German article de:Popponen identifies him as the patriarch of the House of Babenberg. He also apparently held four countships and was a notable benefactor of the Mosbach Abby. This establishes notability in my opinion. - Revolving Bugbear  21:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. see contrib history of creator, who is creating a large elaborate "family tree" through multiple usernames who all popped up in the last few days. Some of the creations might have some truth to them, but they are created to give credence to the links in the article which are to a hoax.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 02:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Note. See WP:ANI.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 05:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * These kinds of subjects are complicated enough without hoaxes. Looking at the links above, I agree that these might as well be deleted and we start over with a clean slate. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as failing WP:V. Bridgeplayer (talk) 19:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete &mdash; at this point it's hard to say that there's anything worth keeping here since what we can check doesn't match up. &mdash; Laura Scudder &#9742; 19:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * comment on name variations: Edison & laura, such spelling variations are insignificant. Remember that the original data are Latin transcriptions of German names, done by ear. this is the general way historical sources work. Yes I think Heinrich can be taken to equal Heimrich,  Ruthard as Rupert; and most such people bore more than one title at different times of their lives.  I think what Angus McLellan and Revolving Bugbear found makes it seem that this particular person at least is notable.  Annals of Fulda was given as the indirect reference only, but it one of the best basic primary source for the subject.   Now, we did in fact have an actual hoax of the sort mentioned some months back--I'm trying to find it.  In this case, it seems different--the figures are real, the modern relevance to his home town is another matter. So do we throw out the real part, the part that is in sources? DGG (talk) 19:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Spelling variations isn't a problem. What bothers me are the lack of agreement in many titles, dates, locations, etc.  &mdash; Laura Scudder &#9742; 22:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Equally normal in early medieval history. DGG (talk) 21:33, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete without prejudice to re-creation. The existence of Konrad von Tegerfelden and his part in the murder of Albert I of Germany are verifiable, but both articles are so atrociously written and ill-sourced that it seems best to start over with a tabula rasa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Choess (talk • contribs) 02:52, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

23 February 2008 (UTC) I want say that I am Tim mann out of NY, I put up history that I have worked on for over 10 years, Mr Brewcrewer, how hids under a name, did his study in less thr 48 hr. YES i put it up in one day, i had the day off, i work for a living, I had it on paper and put it up, I have tons more to put up too. I would have loved to give you more so you could find it alot faster but brewcewer want it all down. Note that many of you if taken a little time, is finding things on it, but I thank you you took longer then 2 days to try and come to an a Fact. A hoax, No you Mr brewcrewer are, two days and he knows it all, most of you have found thing on the House,Town and Family, If i would have been given more time i would have added a lot, and i woul hope that others would too. But history ill be lost.Mr brewcrewer did not like one thin and went after it all, Jelles ha, Note He took down things on the Conaradines family members i put up, NOTE that as to just Rudolf having no kids, is wrong, on WP, there are 6 other pages that say he did, one of the was Duke of Swabia Berthold I, but he kows all the great histoy man. He took down and changet things with out one Refference and source, he did not let you see what was up till he pulled it down. Over a yera ago i went west on a trip, I stoped by and took a tour of Weyyershaw maner I saw shaw and I meet the man, He is who I said he was and it is a photo of him. Learn to take time and look things up and give it some time, you may learn something Mr brewcrwer self made history giant.
 * Strong delete non verifiable &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  06:22,
 * Keep, Keep
 * Also to note that mr. brewcrewer took down over 90% of what i put up in history, He changed took down bi's and full pages that you could not see and let you the good people of WP get only 10% of what I put up and call it a Hoax, It sounds like making people get only 10% of the story is a Hoax.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Loveofhistorynut (talk • contribs) 18:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

whats up Keep I must say that many of wp people have put up things they have found and it is croosed off, the person is the Hoax is the one that is covering up the history they dont want you to see, took down 90% of bios and history pages and left 7 for you to see and to try and call it all a hoax, and on top of it all to cover up the good things people want to say is very bad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.244.195.83 (talk) 19:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC) — 4.244.195.83 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep per Angusmclellan. There is no hoax, but a mess of poorly researched and written articles relating to the Wetters. If the sources exist, this article can be salvaged. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 26 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.