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. Kevin (talk) 21:28, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Duke of Mons

[edit]

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

Procedural nomination. Bearian (talk) Reason for nominating: there is no source for this article and I'm pretty convinced it's a fake. The external website is dead, and it doesn't seem to have existed either (www.archive.org, or google). It seems like an elaborate prank, making a niche article with no source. There has been no edit since 2006. An internet search didn't result in a valid link. I often work on the Dutch wiki on the topic of the Eighty Years' war, to a lesser extent also on the English wiki (see my history), and this Anderson person is completely unknown, and most likely a fake.

Regards, Kweniston (talk) 22:07, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - A google search seems pretty convinced that "Duke of Mons" was a real title at some point in history. How many people held the title, and whether Anderson is one of them, I can't immediately determine. But there's no problem with an article on the title, though. However, the information on Anderson would be better contained on a page under his name, rather than the title, at which point it would be unsourced and an appropriate candidate for deletion. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:28, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the articles are derived of the wiki page. Mons, or "Bergen" as it's called in Belgium was a county (nl:Graafschap Bergen) till 1071. There is no mention of it during the 1500/1600's, as well as not being a duchy (needed for having a Duke). Like I said, the article has the appearance of normal (stub) article, and it's been unnoticed since 2006. It's an orphan article, because it's not based on something real. Kweniston (talk) 22:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I have read the relevant parts of as many of the sources immediately available as I had time for. The ones in Google are indeed derived from the Wikipedia page. There are quite a number in Google Books, none of which are so derived; a few of the hits are artifacts of the way words divided in two lines are indicated, and refer to the House of Com-mons or the like. However, many of them are authentic, but seem to refer to a number of people called the Duke on Mons; the principal one I have identified seems to be from the time of Henry V's invasion of France, and the primary source for him is the Chronicle of Enguerrand de Monstrelet, also known I think as the Continuation of Froissart, (there's a conveniently clear later retelling in [1], which has the advantage of notes giving the dates.) A Duke of Mons seems also present at later periods. I have not yet done the necessary research to see which if any of them corresponds to the person specified in this article, who is in any case much later than Henry V of England, so all the references to Froissart are irrelevant. (and looking through them has considerably decreased my trust in the accuracy of Internet Archive's material.) There is an absolutely reliable documentary source for this Duke on Mons in [2], the Public Record Office Calendar of the French Rolls for 4 Henry 5, membrane 17 for Sept.21, 1416. There is a n earlier person by that name also with a very sound documentary source in Rhymer's Foedera, as excerpted in [3]

A later Duke of Mons is reliably reported in 1546 by the so-called Letters Writ by a Turkish Spy [4]. All these sources are English, & they might be giving the title of Duke of Mons to someone who might actually be Count of Mons or some other title. In any case the English PRO certainly has records for people of that designation: so it must be referring to some real title. I am not sure which of them correspond to any of the people listed in [I am not sure which of them correspond to any people listed in [5] or [6]

I therefore conclude there is material to write a number of articles, but probably not this article--not from any data i could quickly spot. there may have been a nobleman of some variant of this title with these dates, with the name interpolated as a hoax, for the name does not seem that likely. But the title and the people who actually held it were not in the least a hoax. DGG ( talk ) 04:22, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:54, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems a hoax to me. Persuade me if I'm wrong, otherwise Delete. NVO (talk) 07:01, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. This is a hoax (of which the author of the article is either the victim or the perpetrator). There never was a Duke of Mons. The multiple references on google books are to sources that use "Mons" to translate Berg (as can be seen by the conjunction of "Juliers" to translate Jülich), and we already have articles about the duchy and about its individual dukes. There was never a Duke of Berg (or of anywhere else, for that matter) by the name given here, "Rutgar Bernard Anderson", which apart from wikipedia mirrors produces only this facebook page as a google result. --Paularblaster (talk) 11:25, 26 October 2009 (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.