Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Agnes of Eltham

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. Stifle (talk) 15:36, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agnes of Eltham[edit]

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

At best unverifiable, and possibly a hoax. This article is about an historical figure for which I cannot find any sources. The article was cleaned up by another editor removing "fake information". See this version for a version with a couple of references. The first reference is available in Google Books and a search through the entire book finds no reference to an Agnes, Eltham or Langstroth. The second book is not available online. No other books seem to mention this person. A web search turned up mentions, but all of them refer back to Wikipedia as the source, and with some skepticism. See [1], and [2]. Whpq (talk) 11:54, 18 January 2014 (UTC) Withdraw nomination - The concerns that lead me to nominate the article for deletion have been addressed. I am satisfied that this historical figure is verifiable. -- Whpq (talk) 21:25, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found 2 references to her, by usually reasonably reliable historical writers, Kathy Lynn Emerson and Alison Weir.

[3], on the electronic update to Kathy Lynn Emerson's 'Wives and Daughters: The Women of Sixteenth-Century England' (1984). She gives no sources.

The account is also in 'Elizabeth of York' by Alison Weir [4], I am unable to see her reference online (although Weir often doesn't give her sources). Boleyn (talk) 15:44, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I guess perhaps this is not a hoax on the part of the original article writer, although it is bizarre that the person added at least one bogus reference. Based on the info above, I'm not sure that the person is notable. -- Whpq (talk) 11:35, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:55, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:55, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:50, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have the book by Weir--the reference is on p. 451-2 It is substantially more than a mention. there's a long paragraph, with a reference to the PRO Letters and Papers Reign of Henry VIII, vol.for 1514. though without a specific location,and she indicates there is other material as well. As Boleyn says, Weir, though often using informal references like this, is in general opinion quite reliable. I could track it down further, but I think this is good enough to let it stand for now. DGG ( talk ) 04:50, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The primary source should then be here, [5], but I can't find it - always the issue with Weir. Anyone else have any luck finding it? Boleyn (talk) 05:51, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG, who I trust. Bearian (talk) 21:17, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I suspect Emerson has got her information from Weir, and Weir has not given a clear reference - I've searched for it in the vague reference Weir has given - it's not in that primary source. Boleyn (talk) 09:39, 29 January 2014 (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.