Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richardus Anglicus

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bookworm857158367 (talk | contribs) at 13:10, 24 July 2022. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Richardus Anglicus

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Richardus Anglicus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject fails GNG, NAUTHOR, and ANYBIO. I don't think having his wrok in notable compendiums is enough. Clearly CarolineHealeyDall doesn't understand that de-wiki is its own aggregate with differing consensuses. I wish she they had translated the article about the 12th century physician Richardus Anglicus because he's notable. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:06, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rewrite as disambig for the various people named Richardus Angelicus.--Jahaza (talk) 20:18, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as there seems to be something to write about this character, even if it's only to discuss who might have written various influential texts on alchemy. It doesn't need to be converted to a disambig since there are currently only two Ricardus/Richardus Anglicus to differentiate (hatnotes are sufficient) and one has not yet been translated anyway. But the earlier doctor really does need translating! Elemimele (talk) 21:15, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi fellow editor, you'll recall Wiki etiquette rules around assuming good faith and maintaining civility. Constructive criticism on how to improve articles will get us further in this joint endeavour than attacking an editor's perceived understanding (or perceived lack thereof).
When the discussion concludes am happy to update article to address your/the community's concerns, bring out RA's importance, and/or make whatever changes this vote decides (for example, the disambig suggestion given below). (Or give space for someone else to make those changes.)
Finally, Caroline Healey Dall is an historical figure (a fantastically interesting one, see her wiki article!). "They" will serve in the absence of info about my gender. Thanks. CarolineHealeyDall (talk) 21:21, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Indeed, this appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR. Right now it has two sources; the second is not about him, but rather about the Correctorium alchimiae. It is possible that that is notable, but its author does not appear to pass either relevant guideline. In my own search, I am mostly turning up passing mentions, all related to the Correctorium alchimiae. I'm extremely skeptical of the claim He was considered among the leading English alchemists of the period - by whom? There are two Ricardus Anglicus in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography: the physician doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/74815 and the canon lawyer doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/23518. I don't think the ODNB would have missed out on someone who is "considered among the leading alchemists of the period". Especially given the dispute over who this could possibly be, and whether the name was entirely pseudonymous, delete. The appropriate article on a relevant topic might be Correctorium alchimiae, but I haven't established notability for that yet either. -- asilvering (talk) 04:41, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be very sympathetic to a redirect to Correctorium alchimiae if we had it, but unfortunately we don't. Perhaps there's a case for doing a re-write to convert the article into one about the book, using the material on Ricardus as a section on authorship? Elemimele (talk) 08:56, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would happily put together a stub on the book if someone were to find some accessible sources that demonstrate a clear WP:NBOOK pass. I would not recommend using the material on Ricardus in this article as a section on authorship because it is not as clearly verifiable as it should be (for eg, it lists authors but not the specific book, let alone page numbers - and at least one of the sources is over 100 years old, not great for manuscript studies or history of science stuff). Whatever we do, it can't be a redirect directly from "Richardus Anglicus", since by far the most common expectation of people searching this name will be to find one of the other two. Turning up a different Richardus Anglicus might be confusing, but being redirected immediately to a book on alchemy when you were expecting the physician is definitely confusing and possibly misleading (the two are close enough professions that one might assume they're the same person). We'd need to make this title a disamb page. -- asilvering (talk) 21:30, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In which case the logical thing to do would be to translate the other Richardus page too. I'm happy to have a go, but I doubt I'll have time today, and I don't want to rush a rubbish machine translation. I'd rather do it by hand and get it right, and check the refs if I can while I'm at it. Once we've got a couple, this article could turn into a disambiguation page between a stub on the alchemy book and the earlier medic, if there's agreement. I don't personally have problems about 100-year-old paper sources; they may not be the latest scholarship, but until someone comes up with something better, they are the state of human knowledge, which it is our duty to summarise. Elemimele (talk) 08:21, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We don't need to choose between the author and the work. This is the article about them. Its title and its approach are questions for its talk page. I agree that it is not the primary topic for its current title. Srnec (talk) 20:51, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There appear to be scholarly sources in German. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 14:20, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, as recommended above, I've made a translation for the other Ricardus, the doctor; it's at Draft:Ricardus_Anglicus_(medical_writer). I will submit it for review, and wait the normal three months before it's inevitably rejected, and then weep silently into my pillow. If anyone feels that it's worth rescuing, please feel free to contribute; it is not helped by being written in the form that has a bibliography rather than inline citations. Elemimele (talk) 22:19, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Elemimele:  Done I told you the other one is notable based on all the sources I found on my BEFORE search regarding this Richard. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:40, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @Chris troutman: Thanks so much! That was quick. I withdraw my pessimistic comment about the speed and outcome of AfC reviews; I am far too gloomy. Thanks, too, for doing a good BEFORE. It's interesting, and a good reflection on WP policies, that our modern standards of notability can be applied successfully to these distant historical figures; the medical Ricardus would undoubtedly have passed as an academic and author in his day (held in esteem by his peers, and widely-copied author), and notability is permanent. I hope people add to both Ricardus articles. Elemimele (talk) 08:49, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is cited and of historical significance. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 13:10, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Richardus_Anglicus&oldid=1100155800"