Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alric

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. The one reliable source on this has now changed their mind. As Ealdgyth notes, we are not losing much in deleting this - it can be restored later when we have more reliable information SilkTork *^YES! 16:20, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alric

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

This article was proposed for deletion by User:Scrivener-uki with the comment, "The article was created on information on the 2nd edition of the Handbook of British Chronology. After further studies, the 3rd edition does not list or accept this person was a bishop of Dunwich."

I suggest that, as a controversial question of historical study, this should be discussed by knowledgeable editors. As that leaves me out, I am neutral to deletion.

I am also nominating Husa of Elmham, which was also PRODed by the same user with the same rationale.

Cnilep (talk) 22:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —Cnilep (talk) 22:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. —Cnilep (talk) 22:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I had no problems with the PROD, and figured it did not need contesting, as Scrivener's correct, the 3rd edition has removed both Alric and Husa from the lists of bishops. No real need for AfD, quite honestly. I noticed the prods, and left them in place. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:30, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Also to note that anglo-saxons.net search of documents returns no documents mentioning either alric or husa. The 2nd edition mentions "Alric, probably bishop of Dunwich" and "Husa, bishop or dunwich or elmham", neither exactly ringing endorsements of the information. Note the 2nd edition was published in 1961, the 3rd was published in 1996 (a corrected edition). I can't get to [www.pase.ac.uk PASE] at the moment, they seem to be having database issues. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:39, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've managed to backdoor into PASE, which shows Alric as an "unidentified" bishop with one attestation as a witness on a charter (Sawyer 53 for those interested). Here is the backdoor for PASE, for those interested in searching him out yourselves. Personally, I'd say that without knowing WHAT bishopric he was a bishop of, we're better off waiting for more information to develop. It's not like deleting him is going to preclude the recreation of the article later if someone writes on the subject. And to reply to Deacon, PASE gives Haelric as something different than Alric (but they do tie Haelric to Sawyer 233. Just a note to those interested, when I created most of these early bishop articles, I only had access to the 2nd edition, thus why it was created. As I work through the bishops, I've been replacing the refs with the 3rd edition, and prodding those that are no longer considered bishops. Just hadn't gotten around to Elmham/Dunwich yet. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since this is adequate as an answer to "do we need these topics?" It would be a help if Bishop of Dunwich was annotated to note that current scholarship has updated older lists; this is a sensible measure against future queries. Redirecting and annotating would also be an acceptable way to do it. Charles Matthews (talk) 22:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: EHR NO. CCIIL—JULY 1936 may indicate why Husa has been removed. Alric seems to be the guy who left Signum Hælricis principis; so if I were to guess someone in the 19th century argued he was a bishop because he signs under Bishop Saxulf, and he was assigned Elmham because it was unaccounted for (you could be more sure by checking the entries on PASE under "Hælric", but it's down just now). I'd be more comfortable though seeing better evidence for the reasoning of HBC, as this source isn't always particularly reliable for matters this early. On the other hand, it is this source on which we are depending for our article. The article is non-substantial, and as it now rejects these guys we should probably delete them. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 07:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Alric and Husa are now no longer considered to be bishops. The 3rd HBC isn't totally reliable, but should go by that edition than the older 2nd HBC. To prevent future queries, I've added a footnote to the Bishop of Dunwich article about Alric and Husa being listed in the 2nd but not the 3rd. Scrivener-uki (talk) 14:16, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Of course, many such 7th century figures are surrounded by real uncertainty. Alric has some notability merely by being included in various published lists of bishops, such as Searle's Anglo-Saxon Bishops, Kings and Nobles (1899), p. 228. Moonraker2 (talk) 14:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I do not think that the decision that his dis-identification as bishop of Dunwich is sufficient to justify deletion. I am not sure that I can get at the Eng Hist Review article cited, but the "Signum Hælricis principis" suggests that he was significant. "Princeps" might imply that he was an earldorman, which would make him sigjificant. The problem is that we are not sure quite what he did do. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You'd like to keep the Alric article, yet you're not quite sure what he did do. The same source that once did list him as a bishop now doesn't list him one, and so anything as one should removed. But what put in its place? It is for that reason it should be deleted. Scrivener-uki (talk) 23:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is just a possibility. The EHR article was in relation to Husa. Anyway, surely if these guys are no longer what the articles said, then they don't exist? If "Alric" the obscure one charter princeps needs an article ... we can start one. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As for many early figures, we give what evidence there is . He was discussed in RS, and that is sufficient. , I would argue that anyone who is named as a witness in an anglo saxon charter should have an article, even if the information given the practice of having it attested by all the notable figures available. DGG ( talk ) 00:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But atm, my OR aside, these guys are just bishops of Elmham and Dommoc who never existed. They don't represent anyone else other than figures who didn't exist. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Alric mentioned in the charter is described as principis which is latin and could refer to Princeps/Principes (chief, distinguished, or noble / spearmen, swordsmen). In the same charter mentions a number of people who are described as episcopus or episcopi which is latin for bishop. If Alric were a bishop not a "prince", he'd surely be described in the charter as episcopus or episcopi. The name Alric is not a one off name for one person. In the Anglo-Saxon period there have been many people called Alric: Alric, third son of Wihtred, king of Kent;[1] Alric, son of Herbert, who was slain in 798;[2] Alric, one of William the Conqueror's thanes;[3] Alric the Saxon, Lord of the Manor of Cockington;[4] and another Alric the Saxon, who once lived in Lower Harberton;[5] In fact the first Alric, son of Wihtred, may be the same person described in the charter as Signum Hælricis principis. Alric, the so-bishop, and Alric, the chief/noble/swordsman, are two different people. This particular article is about the Alric who was once thought to be a bishop is now not considered to have been one. All I am asking for is to delete the so-called bishop Alric, not anyone else. Scrivener-uki (talk) 11:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Princeps would mean at this place and time "ealdorman", "royal" or "local king". Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right. and as for the others, I was a little puzzled that the name was unqualified, for I would have guessed that there might have a number of additional people of this name, as there are. What it seems is that we need more articles. We could have written them in the time is is taking to debate this one. DGG ( talk ) 04:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually (and not meaning to be snide here at all, just pointing something out) Deacon and I have both created a couple of articles during the time this AfD ran. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Furhter Comment -- I wonder whether we need to convert this almost into a dab page for all the Saxon people called Alric. Deacon of Pndapetzim is correct on the usage. The problem is that we really known nothing but the name and the title "princeps", along with the statement now discounted that he was a bishop. The fact that the claim was made but has been discounted is worth having in WP. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:13, 8 January 2010 (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.