Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hiallt (2nd nomination)

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 redirect to Hauteville family. Consensus is that while there is some verifiable evidence of Hiallt's existence and legacy, it is very minimal and very little can be written about it. Therefore, it is preferable that the subject is discussed in another article rather than a standalone permastub. -Scottywong | express _ 17:21, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hiallt

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

Completely non-notable. The sum total of our knowledge about Hiallt is a 'just-so story' about the origin of the village of Hauteville and the family that later came from there, that is was founded by a viking named Hiallt who came to Normandy with Rollo. This individual has only received passing reference in sources discussing his supposed distant descendants, and only for being the viking for whom their town of origin was named. A Google Books search for Haillt and Hauteville only turns up the three references given in the article, two of which only mention him in passing in a single sentence. The third, the basis for the entire 'Ancestors' section, is an overly-credulous self-published collection of genealogy whose author makes no attempt to evaluate its reliability (in fact, has stated that one should avoid doing so, as it only deprives readers of a good story). 'Descendants' section really only gives descendants of his (supposed) great-grandson, on whose page a better account can be found. There is simply nothing known about the subject beyond the obscure false-etymology for the town of Hauteville (actually found in medieval sources as Alta Villa - high-town), and no basis for notability. Agricolae (talk) 14:15, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 14:29, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Added note - I did not notice the earlier AfD, and will comment on it. Arguments made there are to his notability being self-evident, to him being notable because his (supposed) descendants were really important people, that notability requirements really shouldn't apply to historical people anyhow, and that he appears in 'a lot of sources'. None of these are valid arguments. The reason that the first is wrong should be self-evident. The second violates the literal meaning of WP:NOTINHERITED. The third, well, you can't really use policies to refute an argument that says the policies don't apply, but we have rules on notability for a reason and this person has not received significant coverage - he does not appear in 'a lot of sources', making the fourth simply false. Agricolae (talk) 15:44, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – per arguments made during previous AFD. ShoesssS ^Talk 17:49, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which previous arguments? The ones that was an abject falsehood (that he appears in a lot of sources), completely arbitrary (anyone with a famous descendant is automatically notable; the rules should be ignored for dead people) or totally tautological (that it is self-evident because, well, it just is)? Again, a Google Books search turns up just three citations (there are a lot of typos with more Google Books hits than that), and none of them do more than mention him in passing. Agricolae (talk) 23:54, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep due to his "historical legacy coupled with such sources as exist ..." as stated in the prior AfD. He founded three communities in France, and was a notable noble in his day: once notable always thusly. This article also ties together several articles about the Normans, so the context and links would be destroyed if this were deleted. Bearian (talk) 18:15, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing here that is true - such sources that exist simply mention in passing that the family claims to descend from some guy called Hiallt who supposedly came with Rollo and for whom Hauteville is named. The article can never say more than that legitimately, because that is the sum total of what is known about him, and that is not the biography of a notable person. He did not found three communities - he probably didn't even exist. The article does not tie to others involving Norman history - it is linked to by three pages that are all interrelated about the actually-notable (supposed) descendants. All they say is that they descend from Hiallt. Nothing would be destroyed if they said exactly the same thing without a link, given that nothing more is known about him than that they descend from this supposed founder anyhow. He is only known from mentions in passing as the mythical ancestor of a family later famous. He has not received significant coverage. He is completely unknown outside of a few obscure and non-reliable books on placenames and a foundation myth in a medieval chronicle where he is only briefly mentioned in a sentence about his great-great-great-grandson. That is not notability. He also fails NOTINHERITED, ONEEVENT, and a whole lot of others that I could name. However, given the way this is going, I am at least going to be bold with the article itself. Agricolae (talk) 19:28, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, this is the sum total that can be documented about Hiallt from non-primary sources that have any possible claim to reliability:

"Les seigneurs d'Hauteville descendaient d'Hialt, viking vivant en 920" (The lords of Hauteville descend from Hialt, a viking who lived in 920.)
"This Hautville family is identified with that of one of the most interesting in Europe, . . . descended from a Norman viking, Hialt, or Healthene, and traceable to the ninth century"

These are not summaries of what is said, these two sentences comprise every single word that has been written about Hiallt in such sources, and even the second sentence appears in a genealogical context that would not be considered reliable by modern scholarly standards. Claims to his notability are completely unsupportable. Agricolae (talk) 20:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hauteville family which already contains all the information in one paragraph. I'm not persuaded by the keep votes in either discussion. There's only two sentences in this stub actually about the man, the other two sentences are about his supposed descendants.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 05:57, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Either Redirect to Hauteville-la-Guichard. The link to the Hauteville family will best be handled via a redirect to the place from which they took their name, which is the best place to discuss the origin of the name. I expect that we know literally nothing about Hiallt, but that he gave his name to the place. While it is likely that Tancred was a descendant that is merely inference. As Agricola has said, there can be nothing else to be said. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:04, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, it is the other way around. One of the chroniclers mentions that Tancred de Hauteville descends from Hiallt, the viking who first settled Hauteville and who gave it his name (probably a folk-etymology, with Hiallt being invented to explain Tancred's toponym). Hauteville la Guichard has been tapped as the most likely of the towns named Hauteville in the area of Coutances to have given rise to Tancred, and thus by deduction it would be the town that Hiallt supposedly founded, but the documented connection is between Hiallt and Tancred, not between Hiallt and Hauteville la Guichard. Agricolae (talk) 15:22, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hauteville family. I've had concerns about the notability of this article since September last year; it does not pass the general notability guidelines. As I noted at the previous AFD, all it says was "he was begotten, and he begot". — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:24, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. There are virtually no sources that directly relate to the article subject (and then only in passing and by virtue of inherited notability, which we don't do here). --Tgeairn (talk) 18:47, 27 June 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.