Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard of Flanders


 * 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.  Sandstein  06:57, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Richard of Flanders

 * – ( View AfD View log )

The existence of this individual is derived from a non-reliable, fantasmagorical 19th-century genealogical 'just-so' story based on nothing more than that the ancestor of the first Counts of Flanders had the role of Forester, so he must have been ancestor of everyone named Forster and even Foster. No modern account of the Counts of Flanders even wastes time refuting such patent nonsense. Agricolae (talk) 06:45, 25 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 06:48, 25 December 2011 (UTC)


 * How about http://minerdescent.com/2011/09/27/sir-richard-forester-of-flanders, http://books.google.com/books?id=LgNDAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA246&dq=%22Sir+Richard+of+Flanders%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Z__2Ts-qMMHZiQK92tXGDg&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22Sir%20Richard%20of%20Flanders%22&f=false or one hundered other pages and or links? What old sources before 1950 would you choose?  There is a lot of his-stories out there, much of it involves familiy lineage and geneology, like the list of kings in the bible, another book I am sure you don't feel has any credability,or others out there.  One can't really verify anything before 1920, as anyone of note is dead, and people like yourself are unverifable as your documentation doesn't exist either.  William the "Bastard", of Normandy, King of England, is just one guy who became the leader of many others, who are left nameless, yet those nameless are the ones who did all of the fighting and died.  Those who were successful at staying alive and were literate enough to tell about it, wrote it down.  Not even the 'great' historians got it all correct.  There is plenty of stuff on wiki that has less meaningful interest.  Believe it or not may people have used the same text as I did for  their references into a history that is in the mainstream.  99% of current information, is third party at best, especially here on the net. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DPHutchins (talk • contribs)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 25 December 2011 (UTC)


 * One problem I see is that http://minerdescent.com/2011/09/27/sir-richard-forester-of-flanders (cited above as a possible reference for this article) contradicts this article: "However, histories of Baldwin V don’t show a child named Richard. While it is possible that a Richard Forster was knighted by William the Conqueror at age 16, he was probably not a son of Baldwin V,  or a brother to Baldwin’s daughter Matilda who married William. My guess is his royal parentage was the invention of Frederick Clifton Pierce in his 1899 tome Foster genealogy, Part 1." Note that Frederick Clifton Pierce's Foster Genalogy is the only work cited in this article. Thus, the first alternative source provided not only contradicts the article but also calls into question the accuracy of the only source used. If this 11th century person is notable to historians, the article needs to be based on mainstream historical works. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:19, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Of the two links provided by DPHutchins, one is to a self-published web site, and thus not a reliable source. The other, as far as I can tell, has absolutely nothing to do with this concocted Sir Richard of Flanders, dealing with events 400 years later.  A nihilistic portrayal of history is inconsistent with the need for sources that satisfy WP:RS, and this is not overcome by an WP:Other stuff exists argument. If you are aware of other pages similarly based on such genealogical fantasy, please identify them so they too can be nominated for deletion. As to whether Richard of Flanders existed but was not son of Baldwin, this too is untrue.  He has no existence independent of this invented origin myth for the Forster/Foster families. Without the connection we are left with someone named Richard, of which there are too many to distinguish.  Simply put, someone made up the whole thing to give the Forsters royal descent.  Agricolae (talk) 19:33, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the fact that there is a dispute about this person according to http://minerdescent.com/2011/09/27/sir-richard-forester-of-flanders is evidence for keeping. Ultimately we're writing about the historical memory of the person, not the person himself, so existence is (usually) irrelevant, moreover if http://minerdescent.com/2011/09/27/sir-richard-forester-of-flanders finds the dispute over his existence notable, then a notable dispute is evidence for notability. I guess the question I'm asking is, if Richard of Flanders is a fantasy, is he a notable fantasy? I can't say I'm certain either way, but let's make sure the discussion takes this into consideration Jztinfinity (talk) 09:12, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * There was an unfortunate period in genealogy when tens of thousands of such invented ancestors were wished into being, and for the past 100 years the only people who give them the time of day are the credulous descendants for whom the connections created are too good not to repeat. It takes more than just a couple of century-old non-scholarly books making the claim and a collection of self-published web sites saying 'is so', 'is not' to establish notability of such an invention. It is such obvious nonsense that serious scholars don't even waste their time refuting it, so there is no serious debate. This is not King Arthur or Beowulf we are talking about here, it is just the whim of one author who had more imagination than self-control, and an invention in no way unique among all of the genealogical fantasies so created - arguably this so-called Richard of Flanders isn't even the most notable invention in this pedigree, and doesn't merit a page, either as reality or legend. Agricolae (talk) 16:07, 27 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Agree with Agricolae. This might be a handy page: Identifying reliable sources (history). I checked Families, Friends and Allies by Heather J. Tanner, which is listed as a reference in the article on Baldwin V - pages 292-293 consist of a chart of the comital family that only lists three children for the man: Baldwin VI, Robert I, and Matilda. Also, Elisabeth van Houts in her ODNB article on Matilda states that Matilda had two brothers: Baldwin and Robert . If modern scholars don't mention a fourth child, we shouldn't either.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 07:29, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment -- This article states things as facts. I assume that the existence of a Richard Le Forester (or such like) and of his sons can be established.  If so, it ought to be possible to say what lands in England they were granted.  What is not established is that he was a son of Baldwin V, or that he is the ancester of every one called Foster or Forster.  There were a lot of Royal Forests in England, and many of them had foresters, for some of whom this will have become a surname.  Either this article should be deleted, but it would be better if it were toned down in the light of this AFD discussion.  That Pearce claimed he was a son of Baldwin V is factual; however from what others have discovered this factoid is not based on any reliable source.  Accordingly, Pearce (and probably many websites based on him) are not WP:RS.  I regret to say that genealogists when dealing with remote periods are inclined to make guesses, which others then quote as fact.  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:05, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No. The existence of Richard Le Forester and his 'sons' cannot be established.  Were there Richards and Hughs that were foresters, yes, dozens. Do these bear any resemblance to the 'Richard the Forester' of Pearce, no.  This is not just a question of scholarly guesses, which are hard enough to deal with in a context such as Wikipedia, but outright BS.  Pearce and his ilk have taken any reference to anyone being a forester and merged them together, making composite characters and forging genealogical connections between people with no link except a shared occupation, with a healthy dose of invention as the glue to stick it all together (or even more correctly, they take an invented pedigree and decorate it with supposedly relevant historical documents).  It is not just the linkage to the Counts of Flanders that is in question.  The whole thing is 19th century historical fiction, dressed up as genealogy, and a non-notable fiction to boot. Agricolae (talk) 16:31, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * In that case, Delete -- I can think of several other examples, where the well-meaning "inference" - actually invention - of genealogists has led to highly misleading conclusions. The only merit in retaining this might be to provide a means of recording that the generalogy is spurious.  However, I was responsible for disposing of one spurious link, previously existing in WP, and think that on the whole, the spurious is best excluded.  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:30, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. No reliable independent sources have been provided. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:00, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 01:01, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete As dubious genealogy which fails the verifiability requirement for Wikipedia articles due to a lack of reliable sources to establish the claims made. Edison (talk) 03:35, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Unfortuantely several contributors above failed to vote clearly. However the consensus is clear.  The relisting admin, appears to be have been too lazy to read the discussion properly and realise that it clearly fails WP:V, unless this invented genealogy is so notorious that it needs an article to make clear that it is wholly spurious.  Peterkingiron (talk) 20:07, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable and almost certainly fake. Regrettable as Pearce's book is an absolute hoot. Nothing to do with history as we know it. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 01:59, 4 January 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.