Emicho: The seeming lack of information about
 Count Emicho outside the wall of text about the First Crusade or Rhineland massacres seems to confirm the article lacks WP: NOTABILITY .  The article even had a Holocaust reference in it for whatever reason, until I removed it.  Fantastic Mr. Fox ( talk ) 21:09, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Salutation yet again, I'm going to CV what I said on your talk page.  "it is obvious to me that the article in question is mostly un-sourced, and what sources it does use are secondary or "primary anonymous accounts" which contradict whatever this person did or at least claimed to have done. I might add also that is a point of contention with the Jewish people since most see him as a barbaric Christian who mindlessly killed their peers, also those "primary anonymous accounts" are allegedly written by Jewish authors, which makes this situation even more concerning. History is not about personal vendettas nor is it about claiming that only one party is to blame while the other is innocent. If those alleged did happen then why does not one Christian author (in the article itself) has wrote about it? More likely Emicho has taken the role of a fall guy to blame everything on him as a reflection of Jewish (justified) hatred of Christians."  Ukudoks ( talk ) 21:29, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History , Royalty and nobility ,  and Germany .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Fantastic Mr. Fox , this cannot possibly violate WP:BLP because the subject has been dead for 1,000 years.  Curbon7 ( talk ) 21:38, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] "there were many accounts stating the legend that Emicho's soul is guarding the gate of Rhineland" Did he/she even exist to begin with?  For such a notorious individual we know close to absolutely nothing about his/her personal life etc. I agree with : @ Fantastic Mr. Fox : that we should delete this article or at least modify it entirely and build from there Ukudoks ( talk ) 21:44, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep A basic Google search for Emicho of Flonheim (which is probably what this article should be titled) exclusively in English returned a plethora which provide WP:SIGCOV , including but not limited to: two journal articles ( [12] [13] ), at least two biographical dictionary entries ( [14] [15] ), and an entire book chapter ( [16] ).  I have not conducted a search in German, but am reasonably confident SIGCOV-providing sources exist in that language too, as this encyclopedia entry lists two German sources including another journal article specifically about him.  Curbon7 ( talk ) 21:53, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Those historians are using at least four primary sources which have been alleged to be created by Jewish "anonymous accounts", that is the root of our question.  How can we know those anonymous sources were telling the truth?  Simply put, we don't know As I've stated above it is a point of contention with Jewish individuals that use it as ammunition (for good reasons too) against the Crusades and/or Christianity.  Thus while it might have a plethora of secondary sources, it doesn't have a plethora of primary sources that at least have a somewhat coherent timeline with what happened.  Ukudoks ( talk ) 22:14, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] With respect, this argument has absolutely no basis in any WP:P&G .  An academic source can certainly be unreliable based on the quality (or lack thereof) of their sourcing, but simply being partially sourced to anonymous primary accounts is not itself damning and is in fact quite regular in historical writing.  To quote from WP:SECONDARY : A secondary source provides thought and reflection based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event.  It contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources.  [...] They rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them .  Curbon7 ( talk ) 22:32, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] With all due respect if you look at the references on Emicho's article and Rhineland massacres article it heavily relies on secondary sources.  And let us not forget modern biases which cloud almost all historians who work for public institutions, most of them (I'm making an assumption here) are simply regurgitating unrealiable information.  Whether or not I can claim what historians are writing and/or telling is the truth or not is irrelevant because all of us know, they are clueless as much as we are.  I think better option is for an independent Wikipedian to look through the surviving archives and find out what really is going on.  Ukudoks ( talk ) 22:42, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  I'm not sure what happening with this article right now, but it used to be perfectly fine.  If I remember correctly it was once known as "Emich of Leiningen" but I think it was moved to avoid confusion with another person with the same/a similar name.  Anyway he was a real and notable guy and there are plenty of sources about him.  Adam Bishop ( talk ) 22:19, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Those "plenty" sources ( I assume that you mean secondary and not primary ) are not stated on Wikipedia as far as I can tell.  Ukudoks ( talk ) 22:23, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The only primary sources I can find on wikipedia (relating to Emicho's role in the massacres) are: Albert of Aix, Historia Hierosolymitana Mainz Anonymous Solomon bar Simson Chronicle Eliezer bar Nathan Chronicle While others are secondary and therefore unreliable.  Ukudoks ( talk ) 22:27, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Ukudoks Secondary sources are not unreliable; in many ways, secondary sources are preferable to primary sources, according to the academic or editorial rigor they have been subjected to.  — C.Fred ( talk ) 22:43, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Secondary sources are "preferable" because they suit modern interpretations of politics, public institutions and society.  I absolutely agree.  Ukudoks ( talk ) 22:45, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I was just thinking, why do I remember the title being Emich of Leiningen?  Oh yeah, I'm the one who created this, way back in the olden days, haha.  Adam Bishop ( talk ) 11:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Adam Bishop : What is your perspective when it comes to primary sources on this peculiar topic?  Ukudoks ( talk ) 19:31, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Same as every other topic.  Wikipedia articles are not supposed to be based on primary sources.  Judging from your comments here, I have very little confidence that you understand what the primary and secondary sources for this topic are, what primary and secondary sources are in general, or what the mission of Wikipedia is.  Adam Bishop ( talk ) 21:31, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Unless he's some sort of super human that lives for 1000 yrs, I don't think we have to worry about BLP violations.  Might not be neutrally written, but AfD isn't cleanup.  We have this [17] , [18] and the book chapter shown above, it's fine.  BDP perhaps, deceased people ?  Oaktree b ( talk ) 22:54, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I think that some here do not realize the implications of not using primary sources to back up the crimes he allegedly committed, which is the main point for his existence on Wikipedia Ukudoks ( talk ) 23:00, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] We can't use primary sources, we can only use what others have written about this individual.  We can't do original research nor draw our own conclusions.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 00:59, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : I have struck through the BLP statement, I have no clue what was running through my head at the time.  The correct wording is that it fails WP:NPOV .  Fantastic Mr. Fox ( talk ) 06:50, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I have restored the article to its state before Ukodoks made a large number of non-NPOV unsourced changes.  Schazjmd (talk) 19:40, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you for your contribution, but the question still remains, the page is lacking in primary sources and has an inherent bias to portray Emicho as a evil barbarian who mindlesly killed Jews (which where his fellow Abrhamists btw), if we can at least get a primary source narrative from the Christian side it would "balance" the vendetta present Ukudoks ( talk ) 19:49, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] But he did kill people, didn't he?  You don't need to WP:RGW here, and you certainly haven't help make the article any more neutral yourself.  Fantastic Mr. Fox ( talk ) 19:54, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] We do not know, the only party who says he did such a thing (one who is not coherent about where and how he did those horrible things) are the Jewish authors, it doesn't require someone to be a rocket scientist to put 1+1 in order to understand the ramifications at play.  As Jews were the most intelligent class during that time period, no ordinary Gentile could challenge their perspective (may it be right or wrong).  I'm just being sceptical that is all, if someone can provide us with primary sources (that are not anonymous, as it is a unreliable source) then we can understand what actually happened Ukudoks ( talk ) 20:04, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  AFD isn't cleanup.  Nothing that can't be fixed by normal editing.  Srnec ( talk ) 01:02, 17 June 2024 (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.

Discussion outcome: keep