Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard de Morville (Conquest)

Richard de Morville (Conquest)

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable individual only known from witnessing a small number of donations. I recently removed a confused and uncited bit about him often being given the wrong name. The remainder was a direct quote from the one cited source which I have paraphrased. It basically provides a lot of context written about the family (not the subject) and one passing reference to the notable Constable being perhaps son of this guy named Richard found in a few charters. There are other sources in the References section but they make no contribution to the three sentences of text, and without a page number who knows what they are supposed to be documenting? WP:GNG, WP:NOTGENEALOGY Agricolae (talk) 22:07, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 22:09, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:03, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nobility, which implies the possession of land and the political power that went with it. It is necessary to search for Ricardo as well as Richard, "of" as well as de, and Moreville, Moreuille, Moreuil, Morevill, Morevil, Morvil, Moruil etc etc etc. The books, such as this one [1], which appears to mention "Richard de Moreville" on nine pages, are available in snippet view and libraries. I suggest actually looking at them, in hard copy if need be. James500 (talk) 14:21, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is based on two flawed premises. First, we don't actually know that the subject owned any land or had any political power, only that his son did. Second, there was a much more famous Richard de Morville (the son of Hugh de Morville, Constable of Scotland, speculated to have been son of the subject of the article here, Richard de Morville (Conquest)). Thus a simple Google search for Richard de Morville will tell us nothing of the notability of this specific Richard de Morville, amidst the other. In the source you specifically link to, most references appear to be to this famous (perhaps-)grandson. Of the subject, it says, in a footnote no less, "It further seems probable that the father of William and Hugh I de Morville was the Richard de Morville who witnessed charters of Richard de Redvers for Montebourg and the church of St. Mary in the castle of Nehou in the early twelfth century." That is not an indication of notability, when all that can be said is that he witnessed a few documents and he may be the father of a notable person. Agricolae (talk) 15:22, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- An individual known only from having witnessed a few charters is clearly NN. I would not object to a merge/redirect to a more prominent relative. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:47, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh de Morville, Constable of Scotland would be the obvious target, but that page already has the sentence "His parentage is unclear, but according to Barrow his father was probably Richard de Morville who in the early twelfth century witnessed charters made by Richard de Redvers relating to Montebourg and the church of St. Mary in the castle of Néhou" - it effectively has the entire content of this article already incorporated, while the page name here, Richard de Morville (Conquest), with its incorporated disambiguation, is not an obvious search term needing a redirect. Agricolae (talk) 16:59, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We have lists like List of Man'yōshū poets for people whose names are mentioned in historical chronicles but about whom we know nothing or next to nothing. (Actually every single entry on List of Man'yōshū poets probably is more likely to meet GNG than this, as we actually have at least 31 syllabic units of poetry composed by all of them that have survived into the modern era.) James's comment is based more on his personal philosophy of "keepism" than on a careful reading of sources, as demonstrated by Agricolae's response. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:39, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article has to demonstrate notability, which it does not. Hugh de Morville, Constable of Scotland contains the same information already. Srnec (talk) 04:42, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]