Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walter de Caen

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:16, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Walter de Caen[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Not notable orphan. This article was created based on a 'just-so' origin legend story appearing in a non-WP:RS 19th century American family history source, claiming the subject was related to famous people and giving a nonsensical descent to an American immigrant based on absurd false-etymology of the surname. I have now replaced the entire content with authentic material about the man, but what is left is a stub account of 'just another Anglo-Norman landholder', with no particular claim to notability, and no expectation of significant future expansion. Agricolae (talk) 14:44, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 14:44, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 14:44, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- This stub is probably as much as we know about this individual. The source now cited is definitely a reliable source. I would have preferred this to be merged somewhere, rather than deleted, but there is no obvious target. However, can we really have an article on every person named in such a Prosopography? Peterkingiron (talk) 14:09, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Addressing the latter first, I would say no. Prosopography is, by definition, an attempt to characterize an entire class of people, and as such inclusion does not demonstrate individual notability, any more than a published library catalog indicates that a book it contains is notable. That said, it turns out there is a potential merge target that had escaped my notice, an article on his son Robert fitz Walter of Horsham, which though currently only cited to the same prosopographical collection has a stronger claim to its subject being (presumed) notable as Sheriff of Norfolk and Suffolk. I would not be opposed to such a merge, though adding a de novo sentence about Walter to that article would accomplish the same thing. Agricolae (talk) 15:15, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not deserving of a stand-alone article. Jacona (talk) 14:29, 24 March 2022 (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.