Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henry of Bremen

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. After sources were found around midway through the discussion. Sandstein 18:36, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Henry of Bremen[edit]

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

A non-article. This person does not even seem to have existed. The article has no sources whatsoever, and the little bit of content blatantly contradicts our own List of archbishops of Gniezno and primates of Poland. AndreasPraefcke (talk) 15:51, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject is not notable and lacks any kind of coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 15:59, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ (see below) as incorrect. The archbishop of Gniezno in the years up to 1271 was Janusz Tarnowa. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 16:12, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unsourced permastub. p b p 17:14, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I cannot find evidence of notability for this individual, nor any substantive coverage in reliable sources. Vanamonde (talk) 17:36, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The issue isn't notability, or substantive coverage, but that there was no 13th-century (or any other century) archbishop of Gniezno with this, or similar (such as Heinrich von Bremen), name. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:04, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article has no sources, and no evidence of this person's existence can be found. Also as 86.17.222.157 stated, the archbishop of Gniezno at that time (up to 1271) was Janusz Tarnowa. Ilyushka88 | ^Talk! _Contribs 18:26, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is my archbishop of Gniezno, and this is my other archbishop of Gniezno. (Gosh, didn't any of you people watch Newhart to see how this is possible?) Clarityfiend (talk) 19:41, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article on Jakub Świnka says that his predecessor as Archbishop of Gniezno was Henry of Bremen (although it also gives the name Henryk z Bremy). I am looking to see if I can figure out more about this. I created this article back in July of 2007 when I was new to editing Wikipedia and still did not understand its norms. One thing I did know is that I had had a professor (who probably merits having an article in Wikipedia, but I have not yet mustered all the sources on him) tell me that encyclopedia articles do not use sources. What I did not understand then is that this works for a controlled encyclopedia where experts in the subject are asked to write the articles, it does not work for an encyclopedia anyone can edit. I make no claim of understanding what source I used 9 years ago to create this article, and even less of a claim that the source was reliable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:42, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete completely unsourced, and doesn't seem to meet WP:Notability (people). Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:59, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As best as I can tell the issues is neither that this article is unsourced, but that it is just plain wrong. A review of sources available on Google Scholar makes it clear that Janusz Tarnowa died in 1271, in 1278 the Pope appointed Martin of Opova as Archbishop, but he died before taking office, and Jakub Swinka, who was possibly the most important archbishop in medieval Poland, became bishop in the 1280s. Not having access to JSTOR I can't find the whole article, but I have removed the references to Henry of Bremen from the article on Swinka. I also removed the statement about when he was first elected. There is an article through JSTOR that would probably give a good source on how it happened, but since that was connected with claims of Henry resigning in 1271 the whole line was suspect, and I don't have access to JSTOR.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:12, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now I think we are getting somewhere. According to this source there was an archbishop of somewhere called Henryk z Bremy who died in 1302, and these sources list him variously as a candidate or nominee for Archbishop of Gniezno. There is probably a notable person hiding in there somewhere, but at the moment I don't think we have enough to go on. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 11:58, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:02, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:02, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm pinging Ealdgyth, who is knowledgeable in this area; she should be able to answer the fake/not fake question, at least. Montanabw^(talk) 00:07, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. According to Conrad Eubel, Hierarchia catholica medii aevi, vol. 1 (1913), p. 265, he was a Franciscan who was named archbishop of Gniezno by Pope Martin IV in December 1281. The same pope named Jakub Swinka to the same see in July 1283. Eubel's sources are the papal acta. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 20:45, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good find. A bit of synthesis (which we are not supposed to do) between the various sources would suggest that Henry/Henryk/Henricus/Heinrich was appointed as Archbishop of Gniezno but didn't actually take up the position. I don't quite know how we are to create an article on the basis of the sources found so far, but would love to be able to keep this, not least because my wife is from Gniezno and we visit there regularly (we actually met when Pope John Paul II was in town during his first trip as pope to Poland in 1979). This article has piqued my interest, so the next time I go to Gniezno, which will probably not be until next year, I'll try to find time to visit the cathedral museum to see if they have anything about this guy. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:16, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. "Henryk z Bremy" turns up a number of hits on Google Books, but all "snippet view", and in Polish (a language I sadly lack). But it was you that posted that link, so you know all about that. ~~--Andreas Philopater (talk) 21:23, 27 August 2016 (UTC)~~--Andreas Philopater (talk) 21:25, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Will you be changing your "delete" recommendation? (Assuming it's the same person on the IP!) --Andreas Philopater (talk) 20:58, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've stricken my "delete" above, but I'm not convinced that we have enough to go on to actually sustain an article so won't say "keep". We have evidence that he was named as archbishop, and that he was never consecrated, but nothing to connect the two giving the circumstances of his non-consecration. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 12:29, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:46, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Only a stub, but nomination to a vacant role at this level is probably enough to enable us to keep this stub. The list article clearly needs correction. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:08, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Userfy~~, interisting findings above, but currently the article is not ready for the mainspace as there are some big holes in his biography and we cannot replace them with our unproven synthesis and original research. A source says he was appointed archbishop, but according most of the sources his position was taken by someone else. Probably there is a very interisting story behind that, but until we don't have the whole picture we cannot have an article saying "according one source he was apparently appointed and then we don't know what happened". Cavarrone 13:44, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've done a bit more looking around and have found some more conclusive sources, this and this, so I can finally put that word in bold. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 16:18, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@86.17.222.157:, as far as I can see your sources are hardly conclusive. The first book has no preview and not even a snippet to be evaluated, about the second have you any idea about what the text say? As I said above, is there a chance to have an article with meaningful contents out of synthesis and original research? Cavarrone 16:31, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The first source displays a snippet for me, saying that Henryk was appointed but declined to serve, and my Polish is fluent so I have plenty of idea what the second one says - it confirms the date of appointment and that Henryk had no previous experience in church office. It then goes on to say something about it being a diplomatic appointment urged by Henryk IV Probus to please Rudolf I of Germany, but unfortunately the snippet runs out there. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 16:38, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, thanks. I am striking my vote above as apparently there is a potential for an article. Cavarrone 19:00, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but make sure the article is revised to reflect the fact that Henry appears to never have assumed the office of bishop and also to downplay the Polish-German ethnic rhetoric. To me as it is written it imposes ideas of ethnicity and identity developed in the 19th century on events of the 13th century. I am quite glad to find that there are actually soyrces that support most of what is said in this article I neglected to include any source with. I am glad my nine year old mistakes are rectifiable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnpacklambert (talk • contribs)
Comment another takeaway I have from this is that people we have articles on born before 1400 are virtually always notable unless the article is a deliberate modern hoax. We also have to keep in mind that sorces do not have to be in any way obtainable online to be reliable. I was going to speculate creating this article might have related to over enthusiasm during my medieval history class. However that class I did not take until winter tern 2008. Beyond that it was early Medieval History. I can't remember if we ended with the dawn of the 11th century or if we made it all the way to the Great Schism. We may have even mentioned William theConqueror in passing but we didn't make it to the Crusades even starting let alone to the 13th century. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnpacklambert (talk • contribs)

I agree with your first sentence there. In the days before movable-type printing the only durable written records were expensive and time-consuming to produce, so it is rare for any non-notable person to be documented at all. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 06:53, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep But as Johnpacklambert said, "make sure the article is revised to reflect the fact that Henry appears to never have assumed the office of bishop". Ilyushka88 | ^Talk! _Contribs 01:30, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:42, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If he was appointed a Roman Catholic archbishop then he is clearly notable, even if he didn't actually take up the post. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:00, 31 August 2016 (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.