Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bouchard I of Montmorency
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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The result was speedy keep (withdrawn by the nominator). (non-admin closure) Electric Catfish 23:57, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
AfDs for this article:
- Bouchard_I_of_Montmorency (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Robert Keiden (talk) 21:28, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Woops. I wrote a description of what was wrong with this article, but it seems to have vanished. Let me try again. --Robert Keiden (talk) 21:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This article (and its twin: Bouchard II of Montmorency) appear to be hoax or OR, based on real people but padded with nonsense. The given reference: [1] only mentions Montmorencys after ca. 1500. And the timeline (Bouchard I served Charlemagne? Bouchard II served Hugh Capet?) is impossible.
The second page could be salvageable (if renamed to Bouchard_I and significantly cleaned up.) I'm finding a few references.
- http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/PARIS%20REGION%20NOBILITY.htm
- http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bouchard_le_Barbu
- (oh, great. The fr: articles corroborate some of the text of Bouchard_II_of_Montmorency but provide no references.
- Found the source for BOTH en: articles. Its a straight up translation of: [2] which also uses the "Nobiliaire_universel" document as a reference. Possibly both should be CSD for copyright violation. Possibly both could be re-written from scratch, but I'm not convinced the Bouchards are notable. --Robert Keiden (talk) 22:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ha. Worse than that. :( Primary source [3]
- It's another volume of the work cited by both en: articles. And it does support the text, though much of that information is inconsistent with other sources. This AfD was filed in error, and looks like a failure. Sorry y'all. --Robert Keiden (talk) 23:18, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Found the source for BOTH en: articles. Its a straight up translation of: [2] which also uses the "Nobiliaire_universel" document as a reference. Possibly both should be CSD for copyright violation. Possibly both could be re-written from scratch, but I'm not convinced the Bouchards are notable. --Robert Keiden (talk) 22:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: The nominator withdrew this AFD nomination, so I'll close it as a speedy keep. Electric Catfish 23:53, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.