Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert de Bruges

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 delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:15, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Robert de Bruges[edit]

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

Proposed for deletion because "No reliable sources for this pseudoscientific article. Theory created in The Temple and the Lodge of Baigent and Leigh (of Da Vinci Code fame), it was only picked up (apart from blogs and fora) by Michel Roger Lafosse, the self declared heir to the throne of Scotland. Wikipedia is not the place to propagate such baseless theories." ProD removed by article author (without summary, but other reversals relating to the same article were done "Ex parte and paranoid administrator."[1]). The article currently has two sources, one to an unsigned article at baronage.co.uk, and one to a 1734 source. However, I have been unable to verify the 1734 source, having found instead a 1747 book by the same author, discussing the same thing (the donation of an altar from Oostburg to Gent by Balduin bishop of Tournai), but it places this in 1111 (not 1046) and with Archdeacon Lamberti, not Robert de Bruges.[2] Anyway, even assuming that there has been a Robert, castellan of Bruges in 1046, there is nothing linking him to Robert de Bruce in any reliable source[3], only in the Baigent and Leigh wishful history book "The Temple and the Lodge"[4]. Even as pseudoscience, this has hardly received any attention38 Google hits There is no evidence that he is the son of a count of Louvain, but he has to be, as this whole story is based on one (supposed) mention of a castellan, the possibility that said castellan moved to Normandy, and the similarities between heraldic symbols in Leuven and Scotland. The missing link was between Leuven and Normandy, so let's fabircate a son of the count of Leuven out of thin air... Funny fiction, but not the thing Wikipedia should be used for. This book has a whole chapter on the Castellans, but doesn't mention Robert de Bruges. Probably because, while there is mention of a Robert (or Robrecht), castellanus of Bruges, there is no mention at all to be found of a "Robert de Bruges" in any source.[5] See e.g. the equally unreliable source where Robert is succeeded by his son-in-law and by a second son-in-law afterwards, who all remained in Bruges and weren't called "De Bruges".

So, to summarize, we have one old document about a "Roberti castellani Brugensis", and everything else in this article, including the title, his ancestors, and his descendants, is fabulation in one book by some pseudo-historical writers, repeated in a few fora and blogs. Fram (talk) 07:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. No opinion on notability of the subject for the moment, but note that the article's creator, User:Nightsturm has attempted to remove[6] the AfD tag from the article without the AfD being formally closed. I have restored the tag and left a warning at User talk:Nightsturm. Nsk92 (talk) 11:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. —Nsk92 (talk) 11:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. —Nsk92 (talk) 11:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. —Nsk92 (talk) 11:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Significant WP:V problems, as pointed by the nominator. In any event, insufficient evidence for passing either WP:N or WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 11:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insufficient sources for an article, especially considering the pseudohistorical nature of the sources we have. Alternatively, this can be a redirect to The Temple and the Lodge. --Akhilleus (talk) 13:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ref 1 indicates that he did exist and was castellan of Bruges in 1054. Everything else is pure specualtion, which in WP, we call WP:OR. In this case the OR is not by the WP editors, but the compiler of an external website (Ref2). The choices are (1) Delete (2) reduce to the statement about his existence and "some researchers have suggested him as a remote ancestor of the Robert Bruce". At this remote period biographic (and genealogical) details are often sketchy (or non-existent). Unless there is something substantial to say about him, I would suggest he is NN and the article should be deleted. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:49, 3 June 2010 (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.