Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tider the Young
- 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. Sandstein 21:40, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Tider the Young (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)
This appears to represent nothing but a confused and unreliable family origin legend, a 'sound-alike just-so-story' from the Toutant family. There is no reason to think it even represents a historical individual, and one credulous 1907 book and a mailing list discussion post don't amount to NOTABILITY. Agricolae (talk) 22:05, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 22:06, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete as a not notable individual based on reliable sources. There are a few other old brief references relating the Toutant-Beauregard family history of a Welsh chief last to yield "to proud England's power" (e.g. [1] and [2]). Given the stories of the French court, and such, The tale may be a corruption of a 1751 book, The life and amours of Owen Tideric prince of Wales, otherwise Owen Tudor, which in France may have been considered true history at the time, see [3]. If any of this is to be kept it should probably be merged to P.G.T._Beauregard#Family and identified as notable family legend based on the references. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 17:00, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- Comment - There are a lot of sources repeating this story, as can be found on google books. However, the story seems unreliable. For instance after the Battle of Orewin Bridge, Llywelyn ap Gruffudd's brother, Dafydd ap Gruffydd took control of the Welsh army. Dafydd was captured and executed the next year and the name of Tider or Tudor, (or Titur or Theodric, etc) doesn't seem to appear. His marriage to a Mile (a typo for Mlle, that is Madomoiselle) Lefayette is also a bit fantastical - what early American wouldn't want to be related to these two families! Anyway, the article passes NOR (it is almost an exact copy of its sources) and the subject, in my opinion, passes GNG (it is repeated a lot, but perhaps repeating the same story means that different versions aren't strictly independent), but doesn't really pass NPOV. That is, the only POV represented is that of an ambitious early American family and not that of a professional genealogist or historian of the 13th-century. However, I also don't find any reliable sources criticizing the likely fabrication - so adding such a thing to the article would be OR. Smmurphy(Talk) 18:29, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- GNG requires significant coverage in reliable sources. 19th century biographies and genealogies are simply not credible, by the standards of modern scholarly history or genealogy, when naming famous ancestors 700 years earlier - so lacking in credibility that no modern scholar is going to go out of their way to bother refuting in print each and every family foundation legend that has ever appeared. The consequence is that to describe it as a legend or fabrication would be to fail NOR, but the sources lack the historical credibility to pretend it is notable as reliable, authentic history. Agricolae (talk) 19:29, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- I agree that the story is almost certainly a fabrication. However, it is beyond me to judge the quality of the sourcing, whose publishers include:
- LSU Press: (1) Williams, T. Harry.c. LSU Press, 1995. p3 and (2) de Caro, Frank. Ghost Stories of Old New Orleans. LSU Press, 2013.
- Southern Historical Society: Southern Historical Society Papers, Volume 36, page 76
- American Historical Society: Cutter, William Richard, ed. American Biography: A New Cyclopedia. Vol. 50. Pub. under the direction of the American historical society, 1932. p58
- Otherwise, I think I agree with the rest of your comment - I don't see this article as improving wikipedia in its current state. Smmurphy(Talk) 20:51, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- I understand what you are saying about the publishers, about them looking respectable, but the two from LSU (the first of which actually first published in 1955) and the SHS one cannot be considered as giving anything but passing reference (a single sentence each). As to the AHS, sure, it is now viewed as a reliable publisher, but times change and scholarly standards have changed with them. Science journals of earlier times reported 'theories' that now make scientists laugh, and certainly would not lead them to fire off a new wikipedia page on the subject. Historical publications often credulously repeated stories without any independent investigation, and genealogy publlishers would just take your word for it rather than requiring evidentiary support for the claims being made, and often made up. While these sources may be considered reliable for events near-contemporary with their publication, not so for completely unsupported and descriptions of events 700 years before, even when they are not as obviously flawed as this account. Plus, the changing standards exacerbate the problem - making it much harder to publish a refutation now than it was a century ago to publish the original ridiculous claim. These all appear to have simply taken at face value the claims made in a biography of PGT written by his son in the 1880s. No, these reports should not considered reliable, and if they are not reliable, they can't prove notability. Agricolae (talk) 22:13, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- Again, sounds like we more or less agree. The main reason I am not !voting delete, though, is that the reporting of the seeming fabrication is so common. A preferable outcome, in my opinion, would be to clarify the issue for our readers, as there are multiple independent respectable sources reporting it as if it is definitely true. So while I am fine with the article being deleted, I point these issues out in case someone has a more reliable source that can be used to improve the issues with the article. Smmurphy(Talk) 00:14, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- I understand what you are saying about the publishers, about them looking respectable, but the two from LSU (the first of which actually first published in 1955) and the SHS one cannot be considered as giving anything but passing reference (a single sentence each). As to the AHS, sure, it is now viewed as a reliable publisher, but times change and scholarly standards have changed with them. Science journals of earlier times reported 'theories' that now make scientists laugh, and certainly would not lead them to fire off a new wikipedia page on the subject. Historical publications often credulously repeated stories without any independent investigation, and genealogy publlishers would just take your word for it rather than requiring evidentiary support for the claims being made, and often made up. While these sources may be considered reliable for events near-contemporary with their publication, not so for completely unsupported and descriptions of events 700 years before, even when they are not as obviously flawed as this account. Plus, the changing standards exacerbate the problem - making it much harder to publish a refutation now than it was a century ago to publish the original ridiculous claim. These all appear to have simply taken at face value the claims made in a biography of PGT written by his son in the 1880s. No, these reports should not considered reliable, and if they are not reliable, they can't prove notability. Agricolae (talk) 22:13, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- I agree that the story is almost certainly a fabrication. However, it is beyond me to judge the quality of the sourcing, whose publishers include:
- GNG requires significant coverage in reliable sources. 19th century biographies and genealogies are simply not credible, by the standards of modern scholarly history or genealogy, when naming famous ancestors 700 years earlier - so lacking in credibility that no modern scholar is going to go out of their way to bother refuting in print each and every family foundation legend that has ever appeared. The consequence is that to describe it as a legend or fabrication would be to fail NOR, but the sources lack the historical credibility to pretend it is notable as reliable, authentic history. Agricolae (talk) 19:29, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- DElete -- This whole thing has the feel of WP:OR. I expect the "original research" (i.e. invention) is by genealogists, rather than by a WP editor. If this has any validity, I would expect the article to be able to cite a WP:RS standard histories of Wales. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:21, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- 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.