Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tatomir, Voivode of Ung and Bereg


 * 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. The article's subject is found to not be notable. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 20:57, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Tatomir, Voivode of Ung and Bereg

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:BIO: No reliable source, independent of the subject, which proves that he was notable enough to receive a separate article has been provided for more than a year. A general study of a region does not prove the notability of a person once living in that region, especially if it was written by a descendant of the same person. Borsoka (talk) 20:38, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Weak Keep based on notability. Can't actually read the source materiel, but the google translation of parts of it indicate some sort of inherited title. I make no judgements on verification- I think I'd need to read other languages for that.Bahb the Illuminated (talk) 05:21, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: The subject's title as given above is by itself a claim to pretty much automatic notability under WP:NPOL (specifically, subnational office). So far as I can determine, Ung and Bereg counties between them traditionally included what is today most of Zakarpattia Oblast in Ukraine, together with smaller but still significant areas of north-eastern Hungary and eastern Slovakia (and perhaps a small bit of northern Romania). Moreover, the period in which the subject is said to have ruled this area was a distinctly disturbed period of Hungarian history, in which nobles in areas like this could exercise effective independence for decades. Under the circumstances, even a passing mention in a general study of the region would be enough to establish notability - provided it is reliable enough for verifiability and makes it clear that the title was more than nominal. However, even though I can scarcely read Romanian, I can still be almost certain that the sources we are currently given do not do this. What we have is a history of a neighbouring area which, so far as I can tell, simply does not support the information it is meant to confirm (it mentions voivodes of the two counties and also one or more people named Tatomir, but apparently at rather later dates and not closely enough together to associate Tatomir with a voivodeship of either county); and something that does contain the relevant information but looks like either a fairly general e-zine or a group blog. And the few other sources I can find in a quick search for this area in the early 14th century suggest that, for at least significant parts of the period, the area was actually controlled by Amade Aba (or possibly in part by Nicholas Pok), and don't seem to mention Tatomir at all. I could easily be missing something, but if I am not, I can't rule out a hoax. PWilkinson (talk) 13:55, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * , thank you for your above comment. I do not know whether Tatomir was an actual person, but his (alleged?) title does not suggest that he was a notable man. You are right that a voivode could be a powerful lord (such as the Voivode of Transylvania) in the Kingdom of Hungary, but a voivode could also be the leader of a small group of peoples: for instance, the leaders of the Vlach (or Romanian) communities in the domains of the bishops of Várad were titled voivodes . What is clear, a voivode was never the head of a county (such as Bereg and Ung), because counties were headed by royal officials known as ispáns (or counts). (I refer to the reliable sources cited in the articles ispán and Kingdom of Hungary (1000-1301).) Borsoka (talk) 14:20, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * , thank you for your message. Just one remark: even if he was actually a voivode, he did not inherit that title, because voivodeship in the case of the Vlach communities in the Kingdom of Hungary was an office whose holder was either elected or nominated (I refer to the above cited online work). Borsoka (talk) 06:21, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk  16:25, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  sst  ✈  16:40, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions.  sst  ✈  16:40, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Razvan Socol (talk) 18:49, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Comment: PWilkinson, does this passing mention help in establishing notability? Or maybe this one? Razvan Socol (talk) 19:02, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: as the second reference proves, he was not the voivode of Bereg and Ung, but the voivode of the Vlachs in Bereg and Ung. However, none of the above sources contain more information of him. Can an article be developed based on this piece of information, if scholars have obviously not attempted to study his life? Borsoka (talk) 03:48, 14 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete for now at best and draft & userfy until a better article is available as this is potentially acceptable but perhaps not solidly yet. SwisterTwister   talk  06:23, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete, he was a simple superior ("mayor") of a local community. I think the article Ung and Bereg also contains several misinterpreations. --Norden1990 (talk) 11:49, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk  19:03, 20 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: To add to my earlier comment in the light of later discussion - I am willing to accept that not every person called a voivode could be regard as equivalent to the ruler of Transylvania but, by comparison with medieval western Europe, I would tend to believe an ispán to be notable (though possibly not automatically so), and would tend to regard noble ranks just below it as asserting a tentative (but definotely not automatic) claim to notability. However, while the further references provided by User:Rsocol are enough to dispel my fear of a hoax, all they seem to confirm is that there probably was an individual named Tatomir, contemporary with Charles I of Hungary, who seems to have been known as voivode of Bereg (but, in this context, this might have been a rank lower than ispán) and from whom later local nobles of Vlach origin claimed descent. Whatever voivode meant in this context, we may have a problem of WP:BIAS in that there is a significant chance that the title meant enough that a noble in 14th century in France or England with equivalent power and influence would be effectively automatically notable - but nothing I have seen so far comes close to affirming that. PWilkinson (talk) 19:03, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment:, thank you for your comment. I would just like to repeat that he was not voivode of Bereg, but voivode of the Vlachs in Bereg. Furthermore nobility in France and in the Kingdom of Hungary can hardly be compared: in the Kingdom of Hungary, at least 5% of the inhabitants were noblemen or noblewomen. I think we cannot say that every 50th persons in the history of the Kingdom of Hungary were notable if we cannot refer to a work, independent of him or her, which substantiates this claim. Borsoka (talk) 23:48, 22 January 2016 (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.