Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eustacius de Yerburgh

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. MBisanz ^talk 00:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eustacius de Yerburgh[edit]

No reliable sources for the existence of this person. Even if the Arlington Cemetery site is a reliable source, which is debatable, it just mentions this person in passing. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 05:44, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep being the founder of a noble house is obviously notable. Saying sources are non-existent is dubious unless paper references have also been perused. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:48, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not my responsibility to look for paper references. There are only Ten Google hits, period, and none of them is a reliable source. Find references, and I'll reconsider, until then, this violates WP:V. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 05:13, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is your responsibility to look for sources. Per longstanding policy, doing so is expected behaviour of Wikipedia editors. If you don't look for sources, you cannot honestly state that you have followed the procedure for checking verifiability, and cannot honestly state that something is unverifiable. Looking for sources is not Somebody Else's Problem. Uncle G (talk) 06:36, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is ample evidence to support his existence. The Arlington National Cemetery website is the same thing as an obit column in a major newspaper. This person is directly mentioned on that website which is proof enough to have an article about him by every rule on this site. E.de Y. is also mentioned in several peerage textbooks from the College of Arms in England. The Lord Deramore School in England also has some paperwork on him, donated by the Lord's family whose nobility claim came from the Yarborough branch founded by E.de Y. Very clearly keep this article. -OberRanks (talk) 07:57, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I also just added two sources from the College of Arms which mention the Yarbrough/Yerburgh/Yarborough line and speak of both Eustacius and his own Danish ancestor going back to Germund. I think that should be good enough to keep the article. -OberRanks (talk) 08:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Considered the 11th oldest noble house of England? By whom? When the only titles noted originate in the 19th and 20th centuries? Something doesn't quite fit here. I'd like to know if the sources cited actually say anything about this person's life, rather than just say whose father he was. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:03, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd also like some reliable sources to prove that the named individuals are actually descendants of his. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 03:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. —Agricolae (talk) 17:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. There is nothing in this article that is accurate and notable. Every 19th century English noble family invented such ancestors for themselves, and there is absolutely nothing special about this one (one of thousands of such concoctions). The article tells us that Eustacius de Yerburgh was an Anglo-Saxon, but Eustacius is not an Anglo-Saxon name. It says he was a war lord, but no such status existed. It says the family came to England in 800AD, but this is just invented nonsense, there being no records of such migrations, nor records that allow families to be traced in the Anglo-Saxon period. It says he is famous in genealogical circles, but he isn't: again, there are thousands of such inventions, each famous to their own family, but to no one else.Contrary to what is suggested, a recent analysis of Domesday people has no Eustacius that can be matched with this supposed Yerburgh ancestor. That the family was the 11th oldest is a made up statistic. There is no such ranking, and at least 9 of the older 10 are also likely made up, as I know of only one family that can be reliably shown to trace to the Anglo-Saxon period in the male line. All of the discussion of descendants is just names-the-same speculation, and further, it does not provide notability, which is not inherited (or in this case extrapolated backward). As to using the College of Arms to bolster this claim, it is a red herring. That someone's nonsense pedigree happened to be deposited in the College of Arms is no particular distinction - the CoA has in its collection material of a range of accuracy, from fully provable to completely bogus, and they have such material on thousands of families, so again this does not add notability. As far as I can tell, this man only ever existed in the imagination of the Yerburgh family, itself one of thousands of such families with bogus ancestry traditions. There is nothing in the article worth preserving: as a historical individual he is unsupportable and non-notable; as a mythical progenitor, he is non-notable. Agricolae (talk) 17:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Well, I can assure you that I did not make up this article or insert false facts. Most of it was based on 50 year old documents that my Aunt had obtained from the College of the Arms during a trip there in the 40s. Sadly, most of that is in a storage unit right now and I cant get to it. It is very possible that some of the facts need correcting, but we have three sources that mention his name: Arlington Cemetary + two books from the College. When I can ever get to some of my family history papers, I can scan in letters and charts directly out of peerage texts to speak of him. For now, perhaps a cleanup tag or a citation needed tag but certianly not a deletion of the article. That will simply led to an undelete debate when I get the family papers out of storage. -OberRanks (talk) 17:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am not saying you made it up, but someone did. That being said, even were it all true, Eustacius would be one of thousands of similar people of his time, with nothing whatsoever that makes him stand out among his peers. He would not be notable even had he existed. Agricolae (talk) 18:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is also of extreme interest [1]. I think the book mentioning his name was actually the one my aunt had a copy of but the article goes on to say another historian challenged it. We shoudl perhaps merge this article somehow since there is ample evidence of this person being mentioned in several texts about the family and that should be preserved somehow on Wikipedia. -OberRanks (talk) 17:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Because a prominent genealogist took time in his work to lambaste the family over its invented pedigree does not make the invention notable. There are hundreds of thousands of family histories, claiming ancestors. Does that mean every one of them merits a page? Agricolae (talk) 18:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or convert into article on Yerburgh family. Burke's peerage, s.v. Alvingham traces ancestry back to one Germund who occurs 1084/1112 (presumably in an undated charter). The surname 'de Yerburgh' is not used until Hamelin de Yerburgh (died 1195). I have removed references to the Barons Yarbourgh, because the surname is different. This is a typical piece of the worst variety of genealogy. The author has strung together a series of thinly connected facts, and called it an article. The title is a mere WP:COATHANGER for this. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I also endorse the views of Agricolae. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - But you found a reference to Germund? That would support at least some of the article. -OberRanks (talk) 17:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, it doesn't. He found reference to a Germund in 1100, the article claims a Germund in 800. These cannot be the same person, and hence these in no way support each other. (Further, he found it in Burke's Peerage, which is hardly an unimpeachable source.) Agricolae (talk) 18:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete although there's another possible article here. Family Origins and Other Studies by J. Horace Round:
THE YARBURGH PEDIGREE
THERE are degrees of iniquity in the methods of the pedigree-maker. One of them may assert an affiliation which is nothing but a guess of his own ; another may tamper with the evidence or even forge a document to prove an alleged descent; a third may invent an entire pedigree, lock, stock, and barrel. But this last is a dangerous game and most dangerous of all when there is mention of facts or dates, or worse still, of records. They give, no doubt, vraisemblance to a tale, but the cautious artist should eschew them rigidly, and as a matter of fact he usually did.
Mr. Freeman, who dealt with Burke's Peerage in such merciless fashion,1 insisted that a mere glance at Domesday was enough to blow to pieces some of the fictions it contained. And it is to the Domesday Book that I must refer in the Yarburgh case.
The statement under ' Deramore' in Burke's Peerage, as to the origin of the Yarburghs, is as follows :
The family of Yarburgh, is one of great antiquity, and can trace an authenticated (sic) male succession, from the time of the Norman Conquest. At that period, Eustachius de Yarburgh was Lord of Yarburgh, co. Lincoln, which manor, together with the patronage of the living, still remains vested in his representative, the present Lord Deramore. .. .
Edmund Yarburgh, . . . son of Francis Yarburgh, sergeant-at-law, and the lineal descendant of Eustachius de Yarburgh, lord of Yarburgh, temp. Conquestoris, etc., etc.
The statement, we see, is quite definite and the descent ' authenticated.' Moreover, if words have any meaning, it is distinctly implied that the manor of Yarburgh has descended from 'Eustachius' to his 'representative the present Lord Deramore.' Infinitely rare as is a proved descent, in the male line, from the Conqueror's day, the continuous tenure of a manor is a thing rarer still, but such tenure would give the most convincing proof of the descent.
When, however, we turn to Domesday, there is no ' Eustachius de Yarburgh ' to be found : Yarborough (Gereburg), which is assessed at 2} carucates and 1J bovates, appears only as an appendage of the royal manor of Gayton. We are reminded of Freeman's fierce attack on Sir Bernard Burke and his Peerage :
The tale is sheer invention, it is mere falsehood, which might at any time be confronted by the simple process of turning to Domesday. . . . When the pedigree was invented, Domesday was still doubtless in manuscript, but is it possible that there is no copy of those precious volumes in the library of Ulster King-at-Arms.*
But let us investigate for ourselves the manorial descent of Yarborough. About a generation after Domesday, we have what is known as the Lindsey survey. In this survey, Yarborough (Yerburc) appears with the same assessment (expressed as 2 carucates and 5 J bovates) but the great soke of Gayton-le-Wold, of which it formed part, is now in the hands of the Count of Brittany. Passing to the reign of Henry III, we find that Yarborough ( YerdeburgK) was held in 1242-3 jointly with its neighbour, Grimblethorpe, of the Honour of Richmond (representing the Count of Brittany), as half a knight's fee, by Richard, son of John, and Alan, son of Walter, together.8 Some sixty years later, 1303, we find this half fee split into two quarters, one of them held by Philip Fraunke, the other by the Prior of Alvingham.4 By 1428, Philip's quarter, after being held by Robert Darcy, was in the hands of Patrick Skipwith 6 (less a third of it, held by John Skipwith's widow). The Yarburghs have not yet" and that's all I can see at [2] dougweller (talk) 17:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I would recommend transferring the bulk of that text (good material too) to the article talk page as it makes this page somewhat difficult to read. We could add a link to where the material can be found. -OberRanks (talk) 18:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:07, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have done some further investigation. The take-home message is that Eustacius only appears in two types of records. First, in traditions of these families, apparently based on a ~~15th~~ 16th century pedigree in the College of Arms; and second, the writings of scholars laughing at the ludicrous invention that this pedigree represents. Specifically, he is said to have accompanied William the Conqueror, but no record of William's companions includes his name. He is said to be in Domesday, but actual surveys of those whose names are found in Domesday do not include him. He is said to descend from Danish royalty, but there is not a single historical record of him or any of his supposed ancestors. He is supposedly ancestral to famous families, but even if he was, so was his son and so was his father, so what about him makes him the appropriate subject for a page? He is said to be ancestral to the Yerburgh family, but actual records that document the earliest generations of the family show a Germund in the generation in question (this based on a 13th century foundation charter, so its reliability is subject to doubt, but at least it is ~~200 years~~ 3 centuries earlier than the first mention of Eustacius). He is said to be ancestral to the Yarlborough family, but this family (which is distinct from the Yerburgh family) apparently descends in the male line from Domesday tenant Landric de Horneby. Simply put, Eustacius de Yerburgh is a ~~15th~~ 16th century invention. He never existed. Neither did Beowulf, and he has a page, but as an ancestral myth Eustacius is unknown outside of the family in question. He is not "famous in genealogical circles" any more than the invented ancestors of the hundreds of other English families are (the archives of the newsgroup soc.genealogy.medieval, in 12 years, has not mentioned him once). He didn't do anything important, he didn't found any family, and he is not a mythical hero known outside the family that invented him. We have discussed him more here, in this AfD, than all that is said of him in Google Books. He is a non-notable non-entity and does not merit a Wikipedia page. Agricolae (talk) 01:47, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You've convinced me that there is some fakeness in him but perhaps there should be some record on Wikipedia of at least what you just said. For one, this myth has obviously fooled people for five to six centuries, including Lord Deramore who I knew personally and told me of his famous ancestor. For another thing, we want to have some record on Wikipedia of this (other than this delete page obviously) after the article is gone. I wrote this based on some very well established family paperwork and I am sure others in this world have access to the same material. This all would prevent another deletion debate when and if someone comes along, maybe even in several years after this conversation has faded from memory, and gets the idea to write the article again. -OberRanks (talk) 02:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't know where to start; fortunately I don't have to, since Agricolae makes an eloquent case. Let me note that Anglo-Saxon warlords didn't really exist, that if he did exist as an Anglo-Saxon warlord William the Conqueror would most likely have removed him (or his head), that there was no wave of Danish immigration into that territory around 800AD (though there were Danish invaders--hardly the same thing), and that the Arlington Cemetery website is not an expert on Anglo-Saxon or Danish history. Drmies (talk) 04:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My initial scepticism about this has been justified by the discussion above. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:36, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator --Yopie 14:16, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Delete Like Phil, I was originally sceptical. Based on further info, it appears this is a non-notable hoax. Edward321 (talk) 00:14, 2 January 2009 (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.