Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Kantakouzenos (died 1316)

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. SarahStierch (talk) 16:37, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Kantakouzenos (died 1316)[edit]

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

per article talk page: the name of John VI Kantakouzenos' father is unknown, and indeed little information about him exists other than that he served as governor in the Morea. In the relevant prosopographical works, the Prosopographisches Lexikon der Palaiologenzeit, and Donald Nicol's study of the Kantakouzenos family, no "Michael Kantakouzenos" appears that corresponds with this article.In broader usage, Google Books clearly shows - some mentions in tour guides etc aside - that the name is applied only to two other individuals, one a 13th-century megas konostaulos and the other a 16th-century Ottoman Greek magnate. Constantine ✍ 16:10, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Isn't serving as governor of the Byzantine province of the Morea enough for notability? That was no small position and held for 8 years. Or are you saying this claim has no sources? -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:12, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is not so much this person's existence - John VI obviously had a father, who was governor in the Morea - as the name and claims made in the article. The first name is unknown, and "Michael", which comes from Ostrogorsky, is without basis in the sources. Given that we don't know either this man's full name nor anything else other than his service as governor and his marriage and fathering a son, having an article on him seems to stretch things. After all, if a major work of the field like the PLP, which is so comprehensive as to include even people who are mentioned once in a letter as well as people who are mentioned only by their surname or their first name, doesn't mention John VI"s father in any way, then that alone should be grounds for asking ourselves whether an article is merited. It appears to me that the portrait painted of him by Ostrogorsky, on which the article is based, may have been more guesswork rather than based on the sources, since John VI himself is conspicuously silent about him. Constantine ✍ 21:03, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is whether this person can be named. There are many people who meet the criteria of notability, but unless one can supply certain facts about them (most importantly, an identifiable name) there is no good reason to have a separate article about them. Everything that can be said about this man -- he was governor of the Peloponnese & he was Emperor John VI Cantakouzenus' father -- can be moved to the article about the Emperor. (This was written the moment Cplakidas wrote his comment above. Sorry for the duplication.) -- llywrch (talk) 21:07, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm the author of the note Cplankidas references. In his The Byzantine Family of Kantakouzenos (Cantacuzenus) ca. 1100-1460: a Genealogical and Prosopographical Study, Donald Nicol states that the man's name is unknown. Since Nicol's monograph was published over 40 years ago in 1968, I wondered if recent research had recovered his name & asked for a cite. Based on Cplankidas' research, there is no source, reliable or otherwise, for it. And considering everything worth saving in a merge into, say John VI Kantakouzenos is either presently in the article -- or should be, regardless of what happens here -- I can't find a reason to keep this article. -- llywrch (talk) 21:07, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename Kantakouzenos (governor of the Morea) or something else. Being a provincial governor and father of an emperor is quite enough. His first name is not a deal breaker. We've got lots of cricketers (e.g. Dunn (London cricketer), Lamborn (Hambledon cricketer), etc. ad nauseum) and others whose first names are unknown. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:13, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Clarityfiend. If the problem is that his forename is unknown, then we must do without it. Unless the article is a HOAX (which seems unlikely), the content implies notability. The fact that we do not have his Christian name is irrelevant to that. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:33, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 22:37, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, maybe rename per User:Clarityfiend's suggestion. Notable, links from relevant articles should be blued. Remember WP:NOTPAPER, no real reason for deletion, but clarification on uncertainty of name. Kenneaal (talk) 02:32, 14 November 2013 (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.