Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William d'Évreux


 * 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. After clarifications below, the consensus does seem to be deletion, with a lack of reliable sources to prove anything beyond this person's relation to others. ansh 666 17:44, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

William d'Évreux

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This individual seems to have no independent notability, and is being used as a coatrack for dubious claims of glorious ancestry by the Devereux family. WP:NOTGENEALOGY I have removed a lot of material (see Talk) that is either editorial speculation, not supported by the cited sources, or based on sources that are condemned by modern historians but what is left simply puts the person into their genealogical context: who their father and mother were, who he married, and who his daughter married. There is not a single non-genealogical biographical factoid. Almost all of this material is already found on the page of his father, who is unquestionably notable: Robert II (archbishop of Rouen). Thus I propose that this page be merged into that page. Agricolae (talk) 16:18, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 16:26, 9 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete Nothing shows up in my research about this individual. If there is anything of value not already on his father's page, it can be merged there. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:25, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia does not keep articles on people who are just geneological placeholders. We need to show coverage of the people themselves. His daughter Judith d'Évreux and his father were both notable, although I still feel it would be nice to have an article on Judith that gives more dates and better coveras the 14 or so years of her marriage. We need articles that focus on proved facts, not ones that basically exist to back unfounded claims of how later families were closely connected to the Ducal family of Normandy.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:25, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - funtcionally a member of the inner circle or "cabinet" of William the Conquerer. He's notable not because of who he's related to, but because he was influential at a critical time in history. Bearian (talk) 22:17, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * If he was a member of the "inner circle" of William the Conqueror - he'd be mentioned in the biographies of William - he's not in Douglas, he's not in Bates, he's not in Hagger. He's clearly not in the inner circle at all. Searle has barely any mention of William, son of Robert the archbishop and count - and those are entirely related to either Robert's sons as a group or to William's marriage. It's worth noting that Searle is not convinced that the daughters (she lists two) ascribed to William and Hawise wasn't actually from Hawise's first marriage. There is nothing in Searle that makes this William as a member of William the Conqueror's inner circle. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:21, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * He is mentioned in Douglas, page 33, along with the other sons of the Archbishop
 * The Archbishop ". . . took to wife a woman named Herleve, and by her he had three sons, Richard, Ralph de Gace, and William." That is.  He existed.  We knew that.  Not exactly "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources", as dictated by WP:BIO as defining notability.  Agricolae (talk) 23:15, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak delete -- I also initially thought this was about the Domesday tenant in chief, but his article is at William, Count of Evreux, who is the person about whom Bearian is probably thinking. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:22, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * KeepGranted this is a difficult individual, and the delete arguments are all valid. He suffers from name overlap with the Count of Evreux, and lack of sources common with all individuals of this period. As noted, what is clear is that his father was critical to control of the duchy at the time. What also is clear is that the Archbishop acted through his sons, and that Norman politics at the time was dependent on relationship. William d'Evreux was among William the Conqueror's closest relatives. Furthermore, his status as a prominent member of the Norman aristocracy is supported by the story of his daughter' high status preventing her marriage to Roger of Sicily. Granted, that connection to the later d'Evreux who were part of the Rouen clergy (like the Archbishop) is not possible to definitely connect, but they do suggest that this family held a position in what has been termed the proto-Exchequer in Normandy. Furthermore the later d'Evreux held lands in the region of the family adjacent to William d'Evreux's siblings, particularly the Sire de Gace. Arcussenilis - Talk 12:31, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You should have stopped with 'the delete arguments are all valid.' The delete arguments are that he fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO, that he has not received significant coverage in reliable sources.  That is all that needs to be said.  Instead you try to deduce notability based on violations of NOTINHERITED, SYNTH, and some stuff that is completely made up.  If you have to deduce notability because you don't have sources to demonstrate notability, the person isn't notable.  (I mean really - 'there is no evidence of any relationship whatsoever, but a bunch of people coming from the same town served a later king, so this man must be notable'? What kind of argument is that?). Oh, and before another person argues that he was related to William the C so he must have been in his inner circle, they really ought to take a look at Robert de Torigny and some of the other chroniclers, who name large networks of relatives of Duke William, the descendants of Richard I's bastards, the descendants of Gunnor's siblings and nieces. the descendants of Richard I's half-brother, Robert's half-brothers, William's own half-brothers, his mother's kin, plus a bunch that are just called his relatives without further information - dozens and dozens of people, enough to fill an inner circle and an outer circle and still have some relatives left over to be completely outside the circle. This is not a valid argument. Agricolae (talk) 20:50, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Delete or merge? We can't exactly do both at the same time.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh 666 08:37, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The fact is, there is nothing here worth merging, as all we know about him is that he was son of Robert and father of Judith, and that is already summarized on Robert's and Judith's pages.  I have struck my original recommendation and now will say Delete along with the others voting against keeping it.  I originally thought preserving a redirect would be useful, but now I think most people searching for this name want someone else anyhow.  It would be useful, after deleting, to then create a disambiguation page under this namespace with two entries, one pointing to William, Count of Evreux, and a second listing this man and pointing to either Archbishop Robert's page, or that of his daughter Judith. Agricolae (talk) 15:49, 18 July 2018 (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.