Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aimery IV of Narbonne

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 keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:51, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aimery IV of Narbonne[edit]

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

No indication of noteability via third party sources. Article has lacked any kind of references or sources, and has been tagged as such since 2007. Jtrainor (talk) 23:08, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Unfortunately, I believe several reliable sources may be Italian and the usual searches through Google News probably wouldn't provide much. I should note that a user added 1 reference shortly after the page was nominated and the Italian article also provides one source. Honestly, I believe the article needs attention from users familiar with 13th century history and preferably, fluent with Italian. I should note that 2007 was a year where several users were learning about Wikipedia and certain areas weren't as advanced as they are now, but several articles have improved since then. Google Books found a few mentions but, as mentioned, it's likely that additional sources may be Italian or print (haven't been scanned to the Internet yet) and this appears to be so, Italian Google Books provided additional results. SwisterTwister talk 00:26, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Keep. The Google Books and Scholar searches linked above find loads of sources verifying that Aimery passes WP:POLITICIAN and the general notability guideline. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:07, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SwisterTwister and Phil Bridger. Just a suggestion to Jtrainor that some searching for sources prior to proposing deletion is wise. --Bejnar (talk) 08:31, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:56, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:56, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:56, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:56, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and suggest withdrawal per WP:HEY. --Cavarrone (talk) 18:19, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to be a notable person. Passes WP:SOLDIER, which, while unofficial, is still common sense. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:56, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I am afraid I am going to throw a couple of spanners into the works: Firstly, between about 1100 and 1400, almost all male Viscounts of Narbonne (and quite a few other relatives) were named either Aimery or Amalric - and, while the family (and most but not all modern historians) do seem to have treated them as two different names, some sources don't (as a name, Aimery quite possibly originated as an Occitan variant of Amalric - compare northern French "Amaury"). Add (or don't add) in the possibly legendary chanson de geste hero from whom the viscounts claimed descent, and the numbering of the Aimerys of Narbonne gets chaotic: our subject can be anything between Aimery IV and Aimery VII, depending on source. So any reference needs to be treated with care, to determine exactly which Aimery (or, indeed, Amalric) is being talked about. Secondly, either name could apparently be translated into Italian as Amerigo - and sources seem split between whether the "Amerigo di Narbona" of the Battle of Campaldino (who definitely seems to be notable) was Aimery IV or his son and successor as viscount of Narbonne, Amalric II (see, for instance, the fr:Bataille de Campaldino article on French Wikipedia or these Google results). Having said all this, even if he wasn't the Amerigo di Narbona at Campaldino, there seem to be enough sources on Aimery IV (mainly his patronage of Guirart Riquier but also his involvement in southern French politics of the late 13th century) to make a case for his notability. PWilkinson (talk) 18:38, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are absolutely correct. I believe that Guiraut wrote a planh for the first Aimery and also wrote about his son. I believe that it was the latter at the battle of Campaldino and that he is the same person as Amalric II. Thus, the current article should probably be moved to Amalric II of Narbonne and another article on the real Aimery IV be created. But any numbering we choose will be contradicted by some source or other, the best of which appear to be in French and I have no access to them except through some sparse Google Books previews. Vicomtes et vicomtés dans l'Occident médiéval edited by Hélène Débax has what looks like a very useful article in it. And I'm sure some issues of the Annales du Midi do too. I will continue to add what I can on the presumption that this article is about a young warrior at Campaldino (not his father who was viscount at the time). Srnec (talk) 02:33, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious keep (possibly renamed) -- we have articles on many medieval peopel who did much less. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:02, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SNOW. It is indicative of our recentism that such an article is even *considered* for deletion. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:40, 6 October 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.