Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ralph de Warenne


 * 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 no consensus.  MBisanz  talk 02:09, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Ralph de Warenne

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

After reading this article several times, I realized that it says nothing is known about Ralph except that he did exist and did have a son. Cannot find any sources for Ralph. Does not meet notability requirement Rogermx (talk) 22:47, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete as entirely original research. Bearian (talk) 13:58, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:47, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:47, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:47, 7 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:V; no sources present nor available. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:29, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article cites several sources, they're just not in our usual style:
 * Eyton, Rev. R. W., Antiquities of Shropshire, Volume X, Pages 15&16
 * Footnote 1 of the Volume just mentioned
 * Dugdale, Sir William, Knight, Monasticon Anglicanum, Volume V, page 14, No. vi.
 * Dugdale op. cit., page 3.
 * Farrer, William, Litt.D., Honors and Knights' Fees, Volume III, Pages 300 & 311, Introduction section of the Honor of Warenne
 * Volume X, Antiquities of Shropshire
 * I don't have access to them but unless any of the delete !voters have checked them I'm prepared to take them on good faith, especially since quotations are provided. The article just needs a little cleanup to update its citation style and integrate the quotes better. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 10:11, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I've trimmed the article down to a stub and formatted its citations as footnotes. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 11:08, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Joe, thank you for greatly improving this article. However, I still do not see his notability.Rogermx (talk) 13:45, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Could you clarify why? You stated in the nomination that you "cannot find any sources for Ralph", but three sources have been provided? –&#8239;Joe (talk) 17:40, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You are correct, Joe, there are valid sources here. But they don't prove that he did anything notable, such as leading an army, commissioning a cathedral, advising a king.  He simply lived a comfortable life, stayed out of trouble, and produced an heir. I guess I meant sources that proved notability.  Sorry for confusion.Rogermx (talk) 19:12, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying, but I think you are misinterpreting Notability here. On Wikipedia, the existence of sources is notability. A person does not have to have done anything significant, only to have been the subject of coverage in reliable sources. In other words, we aren't here to make a judgement about the worthiness or otherwise of a person's accomplishments, only deciding whether we have sufficient material to write a biography that complies with WP:V. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 19:21, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - being a nobleman suggests bare notability for inclusion. I'd stub and cn template it.Timtempleton (talk) 22:34, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep, in that I disagree with the submission that Ralph (note: Raoul, Rodolf, and other spellings/versions are common as well) does not meet notability requirements, I think that he does. However, it seems that it isn't (or wasn't in 1949) clear that Ralph exists. That is, there were a few people who could have been this Ralph or who may not have been, as discussed at, William Farrer, Charles Travis Clay. Early Yorkshire Charters: Volume 8, The Honour of Warenne. Cambridge University Press, Mar 21, 2013 (originally from 1949), p37-38 . I do not, right now, have time to figure it all out, and I probably do not have the expertise to do so. Farrer and Clay seems to conclude that the individual is who we think. But if it were clear that the individual wasn't who we think, the article would need to be heavily rewritten and TNT might be in order. Smmurphy(Talk) 03:25, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Minor nobleman with no known accomplishments. Owen (talk) 05:22, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 04:51, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete, trivia; minor person and notability is not inherited. Kierzek (talk) 06:06, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment no suitable information find-able in the web that helps user to understand who is and did this person.Vegas33 (talk) 07:50, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 *  Merge Keep (Is there any reason that the information contained here could not be merged with William de Warenne, 2nd Earl of Surrey? Per WP:ATD-M: "Articles that are short and unlikely to be expanded could be merged into larger articles or lists." See also WP:MERGEREASON: "If a page is very short and is unlikely to be expanded within a reasonable amount of time, it often makes sense to merge it with a page on a broader topic." Furthermore, is "Ralph de Warenne" notable otherwise than because of his inherited nobility? -- talk2Chun  (talk) (contributions) 11:59, 8 January 2017 (UTC)) My reasons for suggesting to merge have since been addressed (by the efforts of Smmurphy), and I now believe that the article, short as it is, is sufficient to merit its retention. As regards to WP:N and WP:GNG, I do believe that the sources provided are efficient to establish notability (regardless of my personal opinion of whether Ralph de Warenne is a notable person, that is not the test of WP:N). --  talk2Chun  (talk) (contributions) 18:09, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - For those who question notability, do you mean that the subject has not done anything worthy of notice or that the subject is not covered in depth by reliable sources? Because it seems to me that there are certainly reliable sources (in the article itself and mentioned in this AfD), and that his coverage is more than passing in those sources. If it is not in depth enough, how much coverage would be enough; there are multiple paragraphs on the subject in Farrer and Clay (1949), for instance. Smmurphy(Talk) 16:01, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The issue is likely that it does not seem to satisfy the General notability guideline, particularly the part about "Significant coverage", i.e. that it "addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material" (WP:SIGCOV). From the references provided, the sources do not seem to refer to "Ralph de Warenne" in a significant manner as required. Furthermore, nothing available seems to indicate that "Ralph de Warenne" satisfies either the basic criteria of notability of persons, nor any of the additional criteria under WP:BIO, including WP:ANYBIO. I would also refer to WP:INVALIDBIO, which states clearly: "That person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being a spouse or child, is not a reason for a standalone article on A (unless significant coverage can be found on A); relationships do not confer notability". Hopefully this answers your question. If you can address some of these issues, it might go a long way towards establishing the notability contested here. -- talk2Chun  (talk) (contributions) 17:23, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know that the issues you point to (particularly significant coverage) need to be addressed in the article during the AfD, it is generally enough that they could be addressed, which is why the keep !votes have pointed to a number of reliable sources about the subject. I've provided a link to one source which gives two paragraphs of coverage. Is that significant to you? I haven't seen links to other sources, and it has been suggested to assume good faith that such sources may also give the sunject in depth or at least more than passing coverage. My keep !vote certainly isn't based on Ralph's relationship with his family, and I don't propose that notability is inherited. So while you and I can disagree about whether the coverage is significant or in depth enough (which your merge !vote didn't discuss), a delete !vote based on the figure being "minor" isn't clear between whether the editor thinks the subject is unimportant (which isn't really a reason to delete the article) or the editor thinks the subjects coverage is, itself, minor. Smmurphy(Talk) 20:15, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I guess I should have (at least) reasoned my merge vote better. Personally, I think that some of the sources may provide answers as to the notability of the subject. This would, IMO, suffice to reject any delete !votes, given WP:AGF. My reason to !vote merge instead, was merely doubt on my side as to whether the sources provided, either separately or in unison, could reasonably lead to an expansion of the content, meriting a separate article for this topic. Perhaps I was also thrown off by the sentence within the article stating "Little is known about Ralph compared to his siblings". Of course, I don't see why a merge !vote would not be reasonable, unless there is a chance of this article being expanded beyond its current size (which is not a valid deletion criteria, but could merit a merge). If enough sources are (later) found to expand the article, it could be recreated at a later point. -- talk2Chun  (talk) (contributions) 20:51, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that the article is unlikely to ever be expanded much beyond its current stubby length. I'm ambivalent about merging (obviously it's preferable to deletion), except for that I don't see any particular benefit of doing so. If we had a de Warenne family article or something it might make sense, but it doesn't strike me as particularly logical that information on a person would be in their father's article. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 21:00, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Mostly as the father's article already contains a few brief descriptions of the family members. If the children of William de Warenne are a notable part of his life (and that is likely given the issue of inheritance and nobility), I don't see why it would not be feasible to complete the description of his family (as the other children all have a brief description, complete with references). And if it's possible to merge the (limited) content of "Ralph de Warenne" to the father's article, I don't think (at least) I could support deletion over any alternative (given WP:ATD and WP:AGF).-- talk2Chun  (talk) (contributions) 21:08, 8 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep possibly merge - The article is certainly sufficiently verified, so far as anything can be from such a remote period. He certainly existed.  The question is whether he was sufficiently notable to merit an article.  My preference is to keep, rather than merge, as Eyton (a good county historian) expressed doubts about his parentage: merging would beg the question.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:50, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * To clarify (if I'm not mistaken – it took me several reads to get my head around), there's no doubt that there existed a Ralph de Warenne who was the son of William de Warenne, 2nd Earl of Surrey, it's the connection to a second William de Warenne, Lord of Whitchurch (Ralph's putative son), that is somewhat conjectural. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 17:20, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * As another note, in spite of the lack of great detail on his life, I am still not convinced that this Ralph isn't suitable for a page given the number of sources and the depth of coverage, but Ralph's paternal great-grandfather might be the more notable Ralph de Warenne (see for instance ) and long-term this page might be better as a disambiguation: there are a number of Ralphs discussed in Keats-Rohan, K. S. B. "ASPECTS OF ROBERT OF TORIGNY'S GENEALOGIES REVISITED." Nottingham Medieval Studies 37 (1993): 21, and the numberings used between them is not regular across sources. Smmurphy(Talk) 04:43, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm making some edits to reflect the uncertainty Joe Roe refers to. Basically, William de Warenne, Lord of Whitchurch, son of Ralph is the first person we know was Lord of Whitchurch. His father may have been made Lord of Whitchurch and the father of this Ralph de Warenne may have build the first castle at Whitchurch. This Ralph was the brother of William de Warrenne, 3rd Earl of Surrey and was involved in and witness to a number of William's actions. However, it is uncertain if Ralph son of William the second Earl of Surrey and Ralph father of William the Lord of Whitchurch are the same person. The problem is in part due to the fact that this Ralph may have been alive in 1086 when the Doomsday Book was created, while William the Lord of Whitchurch was alive after 1200 (this is all according to the Farrer and Clay (1949) book). Smmurphy(Talk) 15:39, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I've finished making the above mentioned edits. I've also added some more detail about his role in the charters of his father and his brother. Just to be clear, most of what we know about these figures comes from the recorded charters, although they would have been active and done many other interesting things: held titles, visited courts, married, made other donations, led knights, etc. As stated before, notability in this case (and ultimately in most cases) stems not from how interesting or exciting the subject's life was or is shown to be in the article, but whether or not the subject was given significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. In this case, Eyton 1859, Farrer 1923, Farrer and Clay 1949 (2013) all give the subject at least a full paragraph of coverage, and generally more, and Botfield 1862 and Anderson 1864 give what I feel is more than passing mention although in conjunction with Whitchurch and/or William fitz Ranulf. As such, I feel the subject passes GNG. Smmurphy(Talk) 17:39, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge to William de Warenne, this minor and barely notable relative who didn't do anything very interesting can have a short paragraph there that will contain most of what's in the current article, and all its sources. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:52, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge to William de Warenne as suggested by Chiswick Chap. Peter K Burian (talk) 01:19, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge or delete. Apparently his claim to notability is that "little has been recorded except his era." Jacknstock (talk) 02:25, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge - This would be the best solution. Frankly, I think that this discussion is probably the most significant thing that ever happened to our friend Ralph.Rogermx (talk) 16:22, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note to closer: is the original nominator. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 18:52, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment. has expanded the article about 3x, so the merge !voters might want to reassess whether that's a feasible option. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 18:06, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * For what it is worth, if the decision is deletion, there would now be three destinations for merging: William de Warenne, 2nd Earl of Surrey, William de Warenne, 3rd Earl of Surrey, and the Lord of Whitchurch stuff to the history section of Whitchurch, Shropshire (I've already added the useful material from this article to the Whitchurch article). Smmurphy(Talk) 18:19, 9 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete or Merge. I haven't read the sources, but the article itself hardly says anything about the subject character. The article is mainly written about other events that took place and places that existed in his lifetime. Forget significant coverage in reliable sources, the guy doesn't even have significant coverage in his own article. There's little or nothing to salvage here. &mdash;gorgan_almighty (talk) 18:39, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe avoid disparaging the quality of the content that other editors have actively worked to improve? Discussions of notability at AfD should be based on the available sources, not how well used they are in the article in its current state., who has read the sources, has pointed out that multiple paragraphs are devoted to Ralph in three reliable monographs and that he is covered in less detail in a further two (I could add a third, Dugdale, to that). Does that not seem like significant coverage to you? It does to me, especially for someone who died eight hundred years ago. We expect much less of contemporary figures with far fewer "accomplishments". –&#8239;Joe (talk) 19:04, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I think no disparagement was intended, just the fact that most of what has been so carefully researched is essentially contextual, including the lengthy "Connection to the Whitchurch Warennes". It is good, detailed historical work, but it adds very little to RdeW himself. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:10, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understand what you mean by contextual. All but the first half of the Connection to the Whitchurch Warennes section is, I think, about Ralph and doesn't seem terribly contextual. Our knowledge about Ralph's life comes from charters he was involved in, a more important figure might also be included in contemporary annals and narratives. Since we don't see Ralph in any annals (or at least, secondary sources do not seem to talk about references to him in any annals), our understanding of his life looks different than our understanding of his brother (who appears in Odo of Deuil's narrative, De Profectione and elsewhere). Notability doesn't depend on any of this, however, and is mostly based on whether or not he receives significant coverage in reliable sources. Significance and reliability is left poorly defined, different editors judge whether coverage is significant and reliable enough. I suggest the coverage is and have tried to provide links and clear references so that you can look at the sources and decide for yourself. Smmurphy(Talk) 19:44, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * "Ralph is mentioned in connection with the branch of the Warenne family"... is pure context. "There was also a castle at Whitchurch, also possibly built by William,[9] and its location on the marches would require the Lords of Whitchurch to keep a military watch" is pure context. "The Lords of Whitechurch were apparently a branch of the Warenne family, often named as de Albo Monasterio in contemporary writings,[10] but their connection to the main Warenne line is not well documented" is pure context. There are numerous other examples in the paragraph, whose title clearly and correctly indicates that it is about "Connection to". The article is about Ralph de Warenne, not about his relatives, however distinguished: notability is not inherited. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:55, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I think you may have missed the point of that section. One of the main reasons people have written about Ralph (i.e. one of the main reasons he is notable) is the theory that he was the founder of a cadet branch of the Warennes known as the Whitchurch Warennes or the Albo Monasterios. Maybe the section could be better titled and introduced, but I don't see that as inherited notability, just notability. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 20:25, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I tried to acknowledge in my previous comment that the first half of the Connection to the Whitchurch Warennes was contextual and that I think the second half is less so. All of it comes directly from published research on the subject, and, in my opinion, reflects that research rather than being essentially contextual. I think that it is normal for research on figures from long ago to include hypotheses about poorly documented issues in individuals' lives and connections, and it is normal for Wikipedia articles to reflect this research. Smmurphy(Talk) 20:42, 9 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Redirect only as that's suitable given the article is currently sources and informed but not substantially so to suggest its own acceptance. SwisterTwister   talk  21:47, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Without meaning any offense to the editors who have done research on Ralph, I might reconsider his notability if I saw him evaluated by a professional historian in a modern historical source. Rogermx (talk) 00:27, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Farrer and Clay are both relatively modern, and I am still looking, but do not anticipate finding more modern sources. Ralph is mentioned as a son of his father, the 2nd Earl of Surrey, by many modern sources (most notably in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography), but not in-depth.
 * As a related point, there has been research into the significance of witnessing charters. While I think notability does and should rest on GNG in this case, I think more weight could be placed on the significance of being a witness to charters (for instance, see: Broun, D. (2011) The presence of witnesses and the writing of charters. In: Broun, D. (ed.) The Reality Behind Charter Diplomatic in Anglo-Norman Britain. Centre for Scottish and Celtic Studies, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK, pp. 235-290.) of the Earl of Surrey (the import of which can be estimated by looking at William de Warenne, 1st Earl of Surrey). Further, the episode related to Ralph and his brother William giving locks of hair as a part of their promise in a donation to Lewes Priory is, in my opinion, remarkable, and is discussed in some detail in Gransden 1992, Farrer & Clay 1949, Dugdale 1693 and elsewhere. Smmurphy(Talk) 16:16, 11 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Redirect to William de Warenne; there's very little of substance on the subject's bio in the article. Anything useful can be picked up from the article history. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:00, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment (voted above) -- I agree with the concerns about his notability. I voted to keep (rather than merge), because there seemed to be doubt as to his parentage.  I am not an expert on this period, but it is one where certainty is not always possible.  In principle I would be happy with a very brief merger to his father, but setting out in a couple of sentences his position with a link to a descendant who is notable.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:37, 15 January 2017 (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.