Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruthard Baron von Aargau


 * 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)

Ruthard Baron von Aargau

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

Non-notable biography; no references can be found. Nomination per WP:BIO. Also related to this article, the person's apparent son. Gary King (talk) 06:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Important nobility, but it needs something in the way of sources.DGG (talk) 09:19, 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) 17:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per Edison. I tried and failed to find any verification of notability, even existence, using a variety of alternate spellings. His brother Waldo is certainly notable, but hardly anything on Waldo even mentions his family. I don't think it's a hoax, necessarily, but it certainly isn't something that has unambiguous notability even through a title. --Dhartung | Talk 11:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I can find this person in Regine Le Jan's Famille et Pouvoir dans le monde Franc, which indexes him grandly as "Cancor, count of the Oberrheingau, son of Rutpert I and Willeswinthe, husband of Angila". No, I don't know why the article calls him Ruthard. Perhaps that's his name in German. As with his son, Le Jan has a moderate amount to say about him, enough for a modest article by the time some minimal context is added. Agai there may be information of relevance in Gockel's Karolingische Königshöfe am Mittelrhein. Nice to see my personal library is better than Google when it comes to obscure Carolingian nobles, a subject not especially dear to my heart it should be said. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Having said that, I should add that almost everything the article says is wrong, but that's another matter. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * But we have an article at Cancor, and we don't need two. As search terms go, this is not such a very likely one, but a redirect to there would be fairly harmless. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect - That would explain why I couldn't find his name mentioned in the sources. If we already have an article on the subject, than there really is no need for this one. John Carter (talk) 15:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * How about Richbold, Count of Breisgau, Ruthard's supposed father? &mdash; Laura Scudder &#9742; 16:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Seems altogether less probable. Le Jan shows Cancor's paternal grandfather as name unknown (table 16, p. 199) or doesn't show him at all in favour of his maternal grandfather (table 55, p. 400). Riché's table of Robertians (Les Carolingiens, table xviii) doesn't go back beyond Cancor's father. The fr:Robertiens article says his name was Lam[pb]ert, but according to Le Jan's table 16 this mistakes Robert/Rupert, father of Cancor, with a cousin of the same name. Richbold and Udo are very fishy indeed. This kind of dubious genealogical material has also been added to Conradine dynasty, Gebhard, Count of the Lahngau and Waldo of Reichenau. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 19:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Hoax. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 02:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * On the whole, we might as well delete this I suppose. No great loss. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:22, 22 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.