Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iñigo Ximenes Arista, Count de Bigore

{{ns:0|B}}

:{{la|Iñigo Ximenes Arista, Count de Bigore}} ([{{fullurl:Iñigo Ximenes Arista, Count de Bigore|wpReason={{urlencode:AfD discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iñigo Ximenes Arista, Count de Bigore}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Subject is a historical nonentity as described. Built upon the otherwise unknown father of the historical king Íñigo Arista of Pamplona, yet made grandfather and identified with a Gascony leader of a different name. Details are either extrapolated from what is known or claimed of king Íñigo (e.g. king Íñigo was supposedly Count of Bigorre, so his father must have been; death date is actually that of king Iñigo's step-father), or are completely invented (e.g. named in Song of Roland). Only cites are to web pages and on-line genealogies. Historical individual, if one can even be said to have existed as such, was historically insignificant, and is not named in any surviving historical document. Violates WP:V, WP:N, WP:NOR Agricolae (talk) 20:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related page because it is a duplicate entry relating to the same confused historical cipher as Iñigo Ximenes Arista, Count de Bigore:

:{{la|Iñigo Ximenes de Pampelune}} Agricolae (talk) 20:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

*Keep since they are named in a very major work of (semi)fiction, it is reasonable that people would want information on who they are. That's one of the prime purposes of an encyclopedia. If there's not much to say, then it's a short article. If there's doubt about the actual historical status, that goes in t he article, where people can see it. DGG (talk) 20:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

::Comment. I think you've misread the nomination, DGG. Agricolae is saying that, despite the statement in the article, this fellow is not mentioned in The Song of Roland (which indeed seems to be the case). Deor (talk) 21:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

:::Comment. Yes, this is what I am saying - I don't find either there, in spite of the claim in the article. Historically, there is no doubt - these people never existed historically, but were created through confusion of details relating to distinct individuals and some wishful thinking forced into a genealogical framework, then further confusion. I realize that reality is not the sole basis for deciding the issue, but if these individuals deserve a position it is only as fictional characters, and then their coverage should be consistent with their role in the work, which has yet to be demonstrated, currently is uncited, and if it is insignificant enough to escape a second search, just now, hardly deserves more than the briefest of mention on the Song of Roland page, and not a page of their own.Agricolae (talk) 22:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete both. Fails WP:V. Deor (talk) 21:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Don't see it either, by a search, but I want to check alternate names. There's a problem how to handle the semi-legendary. DGG (talk) 22:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 23:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect to Song of Roland. The articles are stubs with no possibility of expansion, because nothing is known of them. They should therefore be redirected to the article where they are mentioned. In that article, the names should of course be de-linked. I know nothing in particualr of the subject. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

::Um, where are you seeing this guy mentioned (linked or otherwise) in The Song of Roland? Deor (talk) 22:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

::Let me just add something with regard to this "he is in Roland, so redirect it" argument. Were I to create a page entitled "Sir Excrement of the Irritable Bowel", make him brother of Cassius, founder of the Banu Qasi, and say that he is in the Song of Roland, well, if you look at the Song of Roland you find a character named Escremiz, clearly the character I had in mind when I made the statement. However, that there is such a character in no way makes my page any more legitimate, nor should Sir Excrement redirect to The Song of Roland: the unreferenced claim that Escremiz is the same as my guy is not justification for a Sir Excrement entry, even if it is only a redirect. A redirect just adds seeming validity to an unverifiable invention. Agricolae (talk) 02:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as result of pure confusion and misinformation. Srnec (talk) 19:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

: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.