Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William de la Pole the Elder

:{{la|William de la Pole the Elder}} ([{{fullurl:William de la Pole the Elder|wpReason={{urlencode:AfD discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William de la Pole the Elder}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

GEC, Complete Peerage XII(1) states that Dugdale said that the father of William de la Pole (of Hull), an article formerly entitled William de la Pole the Younger was named in the Pipe Roll of 26 Edward I as William de la Pole, but the editors evidently could not trace his reference. They cited one work that said he was a cousin of William de la Pole od Powysland (i.e. Powys Wenwynwyn), but that there was no evidcne cited for this and none was known. Oxford Dictionary of National Biography states that the origins of William de la Pole (of Hull) and his brother Richard are obscure. I have recently edited that article to confomr to what Oxford DNB says. The sole merit of this article is that its subject provides a link between the Princes of Powys and the de la Pole Dukes of Suffolk. However in view of what GEC says, we cannot even be certain of the name of William de la Pole (of Hull)'s father, let alone his ancestry. Accordingly, this article is about a person of whom nothing is certainly known. Such an article cannot be retained. However, I am nominating this for AFD, not PROD to give a chance to its creators to save it. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, heir presumptive of the throne of Powys Wenwynwyn is notable enough. Corvus cornix_talk 22:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

:You have failed to read my nomination and the associated links properly. The alleged relationship is wholly spurious. See also William de la Pole (of Mawddwy). Peterkingiron (talk) 22:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

::I read your nomination. Nothing stops you from placing the information you provided above in the article. Corvus cornix_talk 22:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

:it is not a question of non-notability, but of non-existence. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete: claims of his existence are unsupported, and there is every reason to think he is a historical non-entity, invented to make a genealogical link that is bogus (i.e. the family of the daughter of his supposed father Owen de la Pole inherited the family land and titles, suggesting no such brother with descendants existed). Violates WP:V. Agricolae (talk) 02:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete: the only verifiable information is that there was a William, younger son of Owen de la Pole, which is IMO insufficient for an article. Choess (talk) 21:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. —Peterkingiron (talk) 22:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 21:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
• KEEP VERY STRONG keep, I have come across other articals myself (Will try to uncover them, prehaps write to the Library of Wales). The Mathrafal dynasty of Powys ... by the end of the 13th century... made their principle seat at Pool, in Powys. Today known as Welshpool. Owain adopted the more Norman sounding name de la Pole in reference to this... of the Pool. This is well known among historians of Welsh interest. After the Statute of Rhuddlan abolished the princely title of Prince of Powys, the male descendents of Owain de la Pole were given title and land in Yorkshire, while Powys Wynwynwyn went to his eldest daughter Hawise... but in reality it was administered by her husband... transfering the land directly into Norman hands. They (the remaining male heirs) were 'bought off' from their historic claim...the back ground here was that the English crown wished to disassociate the remaining male heirs of Gwynedd (Rhodri of the Aberffraw line was given title in England, too) and Powys. Please keep!♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 07:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
• Here is one site that lists his genelogy. http://www.welshicons.org.uk/html/powys_wenwynwyn.php
• Verifyability requires more than just a nationalistic web site or adamant desire. As strong as Drachenfyre feels about it, it is still unverified by reliable and unbiased history. This connection between William, son of Owain (fully documented, but historically insignificant in terms of notoriety - the son that is, the father was notable) and the later de la Pole Dukes of Suffolk appears to be nothing but a 'names-the-same' fallacy (this person and that person had the same or similar name(s), so they must be the same person or related). Agricolae (talk) 13:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC) Redactions as per Choess. Agricolae (talk) 17:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

:::Comment (by nominator). The Welsh icons website does show the alleged descent of the Dukes from the Pricnes of Powys. However the question arises as to what that website's sources were. I have posted a comment on that website, asking for sources. For the moment, the alleged descent must be regarded as unverified, since the weight of evidence remains against its reliability. I will be happy to withdraw the nomination if a credible source can be provided, but not until then. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I've looked into this further, and it appears that Owen de la Pole did not have a son named William; that information was only sourced to a website, and it's contradicted by a reliable source (G.T.O. Bridgeman's The Princes of Upper Powys). The website appears to have included Owen's brothers among his children, and we already have an article on Owen's brother, William de la Pole (of Mawddwy). At this point, it seems we really have no reliable sources at all for the individual under discussion. Choess (talk) 00:45, 17 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.