Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ratimir of Serbia


 * 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 to delete. After reading this discussion, it seems to be mainly a content dispute (and even that is disputed). Discussion and debate should be continued on the talk page of the article. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 05:52, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Ratimir of Serbia

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This person is probably fictional and pseudo-historic, as well as his "predecessor" Vladin. The only source that mentions that is Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja (a South Slavic version of story of King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table). It claims that Serbian rulers is descendants of Goths who established their kingdom on western Balkan that flourished for many years. In fact, (Ostro)Gothic kingdom was annihilated in time of eastern roman emperor Justinian. Further, Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja contradicts to De Administrando Imperio, written by emperor Constantine VII. Ratimir is not mentioned in DAI. But Wikipedia teaches us that thi Ratimir (mentioned in CPD, but not mentioned in DAI) is predecessor to Višeslav of Serbia, first Serbian prince mentioned by name mentioned in DAI (and not mentioned in CPD).  Bojan   Talk   03:50, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:14, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. Google Books search for Ratimir + Viseslav yield a number of hits about Balkan rulers in the eight and ninth centuries named Ratimir, and some would appear to confirm this.  There's also a Ratimir of Pannonian Croatia that may or may not be related.  He may be legendary, but the legend is not a hoax.  - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:14, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete That article makes a definite statement that the was the ruler of Serbia for a certain time. If this is not reliable information then WP should not say it. If he is notable as a semi-legendary figure (like Arthur) then have an article about that. BigJim707 (talk) 16:40, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep If there is a published source, even an ancient one, then that would meet our need for notability.  If there is a reasonable claim that he's a non-existent mythical figure, then that's a reason to re-write the article to maintain WP:NPOV, but not one to delete it. After all, we'd keep King Arthur. Even if this is one of those semi-mythical figures that has become a more of a political figurehead than anything else, all the more reason to provide a balanced encyclopedic article on it.  Andy Dingley (talk) 20:01, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:01, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * There is nothing much to say about Ratimir/Ratomir. The only document that mentions him (which contradicts to other sources) dedicates to him only one passage (out of 47). But it does NOT tell that he was member of House of Vlastimirović, doesn't indicate that he lived around 700-730 and doesn't say that his successor was Višeslav. This article is not even an original research... --  Bojan    Talk   03:00, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I have a simple rule of thumb. People who lived before movable type are notable if their names were written down.  If there's a manuscript chronicle or source out there that says that he was a king and the father of a king, he's an encyclopedia subject even if he never really existed and the chronology he appears in makes no sense.  This seems to me to be about a content dispute. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 05:53, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * There is manuscript - Chronicle of Priest of Doklea - that mentions it, but historical value of 2/3 of the manuscript is dubious in best case. It clashes with accepted history, professional scholar discarded it as serious source at the end of 19th century. It is like somebody uses books of Moses to write history of Jews before king David. Comparison with Bible, king Arthur is inadequate: unlike Arthur, Holly Grail and Knights of the Round table that are popular motives since Middle Ages, Ratimir & Co. are unknown. 3/4 of this ultra-stub is original research. The chronicler only wrote that Ratimir persecuted Christians and that was son of equally fictional Vladin and had four sons. I think it is not worth even a stub. Only reason why this article exists are revisionists (ignorant and aggressive like creationists in USA). --  Bojan   Talk   09:56, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * This has something to do with Balkan ethnic politics, then? - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 12:34, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah. Article in current state doesn't tell much on controversy ("Gothic" origin of Croats and Serbs, Red Croatia, "Serbian autochtonic school". You need to see its talk page for more details. --  Bojan   Talk   14:20, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The only document that mentions him (which contradicts to other sources)
 * It takes two sources to make a contradiction, not an "only document". A source doesn't become a contradiction, 'wrong' or an unreliable source, just because its reader disagrees with it. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:49, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * It contradicts not only to other Byzantine and Papal sources, but to itself. All scientist who studied concluded that its few parts (that talks on events before 9th century) are worthless, and others should be dealt with caution. Another example of contradiction is presenting Moravian ruler Svatopluk I as ruler of Balkan Slavs. Just read article on CPD and its talk page, you'll understand what I'm talking about. --  Bojan   Talk   22:17, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is a content dispute.  All seem to agree that this person and his alleged descendants are in fact discussed in a historical primary source whose credibility is doubted by the nominator.  Non-English sources are discussing the names Ratimir and Viseslav together, with dates that correspond to the subject.  I cannot tell whose side they are on, and as such can't be much help to improve the article.  Apparently this fellow and the claims now being ventured in his name are being used as some kind of ethno-political McGuffin.  I won't have the interest or patience to grasp the real controversy here, but the involvement of Balkan ethnic politics will test the assumption of good faith from all concerned.  He's a real figure in history or legend, appearing in a primary source, discussed in secondary sources: that should settle it. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 03:47, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * This is NOT content dispute. This stub has two sentences, and both are original research (in best case). What do you think, why Serbian Wikipedia, a medium size wikipedia, doesn't have articles on this Serbian ruler, while in the same tame, has articles on every other Serbian prince, princess, king, queen, emperor and empress? Because people who profesionalyy studied CPD for more than one century concluded that leading chapters of the chronicle are plain fiction --  Bojan    Talk   07:19, 23 November 2011 (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.