Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Infanta Iñiga of Asturias


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:58, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Infanta Iñiga of Asturias

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is all made up - the individual is entirely unknown to history, and represents some family's attempt to connect their lineage to the ancient kings via outright invention. There are no reliable sources, nor could there ever be. Agricolae (talk) 19:13, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete – Nothing in this article is true. If it is, there are no reliable sources to prove it. – TC N7  JM  19:19, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 19:24, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 19:24, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 19:26, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Rather than pack this AfD page with a detailed criticism of the current text, I have placed such a criticism on the article's Talk page. Agricolae (talk) 20:01, 2 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete - Nothing more than false info. I'm rather surprised this page lasted for almost 4 years without any comment.  Zappa  O  Mati   03:18, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete -- even if it were all true, I do not think it would make her notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:00, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete, but can we preserve the talk page? (This article only survived because nothing linked to it.) Srnec (talk) 04:13, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't talk pages of deleted pages qualify for WP:CSD? – TC N7  JM  04:17, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, that's right - a Talk without a mainspace page is toast. A similar entry can always be made on Pelayo's Talk page refuting the existence of this daughter if it is deemed worth preserving. Agricolae (talk) 05:40, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I think Agricolae's explanation on the talk page should remain somewhere in case this page is ever created again, or even just to tip off the unsuspecting amateur who's researching this stuff online. Srnec (talk) 14:53, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Possible delete - This was quite some time ago so any existing evidence is probably archived or no longer existing. A Google Books search provided this 1752 book citing a "Doña Iñiga" marrying but to an Iñigo Arifta and this with other similar circumstances. Aside from that, there doesn't appear to be much information about this person or anything to improve or keep the article even a little bit. SwisterTwister   talk  01:12, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Neither of the citations you point to have the slightest thing to do with the 'person' in question. The first reports the marriage of the Basque kinglet Iñigo Arista (d. 850/1) to Iñiga (alt. form Onneca).  This is 1) 150 years after the time period in question, 2) in a different region and cultural context (the Basque principality of Pamplona, not the Visigoth principality of Asturias), and 3) based on a collection of charters of dubious authenticity (a different collection of charters includes one that instead names the wife of Iñigo as Toda, but it too is doubtful).  The second book is describing events in the kingdom of Leon (the successor state to the kingdom of Asturias) during the reign of Bermudo II (d. 998), so two and a half centuries later than Pelayo.  Agricolae (talk) 02:11, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I knew they weren't the same person, I guess I should have clarified that I found nothing relevant (though the article doesn't provide much info itself to help search). Regarding your nomination comment, where does it exactly say this is an attempt of a family tree? SwisterTwister   talk  04:25, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It doesn't say this is the case, but from the claim being made and the way it is being expressed, it is obvious that is what this is. Someone decided that the documented pedigree of the Tagle family wasn't good enough and started to get creative.  This account falls within a broad pattern seen in medieval genealogy, and there are numerous instances of invented additional children (usually either a daughter or an illegitimate son) of a revered king that have cropped up over the centuries.  You can see such inventions all across Europe, and they all have a similar pattern to them.  I was just recognizing that pattern for what it was. It is one of the things that provides a constant headache to scholarly medieval genealogy - all of these old family foundation legends that they have to keep refuting, (keep refuting because the families in question do not want their sacred origin legends questioned and so play 'I didn't hear that'. This is not the only one on Wikipedia, but it is one of the more obviously false of them for all the reasons I gave on the Talk page.  Agricolae (talk) 05:48, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. Creative?  Yes.  Verifiable, or even true?  Doubtful.   dci  &#124;  TALK   01:45, 9 March 2013 (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.