Talk:Gisela, daughter of Charlemagne

message: What is the claim to notability of this person?  Other than the bare bones of dates and parentage, we are told nothing but that little of her is known, and that she is often confused with her aunt.  That is the very definition of non-notable. 06:38, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 7 years later Google books has progressed enough to be able find significant referencing on this person, and clues to further historical sources. A den jentyl ettien avel dysklyver 15:49, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Not everything found on Google Books is reliable, a handful of passing references don't establish notability. Agricolae (talk) 21:20, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:   1000+ year old figures, mentioned in dozens (and possibly quite a bit more due to variant spellings and non English) of sources are generally notable.Icewhiz (talk) 21:31, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Says who? Not the GNG, not if they are all just passing references. Just as someone can not be too old to be notable, there is no magic date where if you lived before that time, you are notable by default. Agricolae (talk) 21:45, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Says editors not obsessed with there AfD record. A passing reference is one which requires you to do original research to identify the subject, that is not the case here, you should be aware the standards for inclusion are diffrent for different time periods, and I doubt you even read that latin treatise. A den jentyl ettien avel dysklyver 22:04, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: * This is a self-published source from lulu.com. Not reliable. It also doesn't support the information it's sourcing "Gisela, often styled with varied alternate spellings, (c. 781 - 808 or later)"... as it very definitely says she died IN 808. Nor does it mention any alternate spellings. And really - a source that gives a surname as "deCarolingian" for Charlemagne? REALLY?
* "was a daughter of Charlemagne from his marriage to Hildegard." is sourced to two indexes and medieval lands by Charles Cawley. I suggest searching on Medieval Lands at the WP:RSN to see that the source is not considered to be the best possible. I'm not seeing how the two indexes support that Gisela was also Hildegard's daughter
* "Gisela was named after her paternal aunt Gisela, to whom Charlemagne was particularly close." is sourced to this, but that page does not support the information given. what the source says is that Charles the Bald (who is NOT Charlemagne) named his daughter Gisela "for his sister (and a series of aunts)". Nothing about it being Gisela's paternal aunt nor that Charlemagne was particularly close to Gisela's namesake.
* "She was baptized at the Basilica of Sant'Ambrogio in 781 by Thomas, Archbishop of Milan." is sourced to a primary source, which is not needed. Nor are three other sources needed. At least they support the information given, however.
* "She was educated at the castle in Aachen. Her tutor there was Alcuin. She was particularly interested in astronomy." is sourced to this. At best is sorta supports the astronomy - there is nothing in that source that supports the studying in Aachen or that her tutor was Alcuin.
* "Like her sisters Bertha and Rotrude, Gisela never married, as her father feared losing political influence by such an alliance. Rumors circulated in the royal court about impropriety of Gisela and her sisters." is sourced to this, this, and this. The second one is not exactly the best source and it only mentions Gisela once anyway. It does nothing to support the sentence given. The first source says that Charlemagne MAY have feared losing political influence if his daughters married. But ... it doesn't state that outright as the article's sentence does. Nor does it say Gisela never married. Nothing about rumors either. The third source doesn't support the information either - it just says Gisela went with her parents somewhere.
* "It is not definitely known whether Gisela was ever betrothed." is sourced to this and an offline source. The online source given does not support this information at all, as it doesn't actually mention Gisela daughter of Charlemagne at all. There is a mention of Pippin's daughter Gisela and Charlemagne's daughter Rotruda, but not Charlemagne's daughter Gisela.
* "There are conflicting reports regarding her death. While some sources state 808, others state that in 814 she was sent to a convent by one of her 3 brothers, Louis the Pious." is sourced to this and this, neither of which support "There are conflicting reports regarding her death. While some sources state 808". And as a side note, the second source is actually Einhard's Life of Charlemagne which has been reprinted by someone at lulu.com. And the first is actually a reprint of this work from 1898 so we're not exactly dealing with current scholarship. 
* "Although little detail is known about her life, she has been written about in most treatises concerning the Carolingian dynasty, and appears as a character in several recent works of fiction." is sourced to this, this, this, and . Those four links are to the "about" pages for four fiction books. Nothing in those four links supports "Although little detail is known about her life, she has been written about in most treatises concerning the Carolingian dynasty". 
: All in all, I find a lot of problems with th is article. Much of the infromation in it is not actually supported by the sources that are supposedly supporting it. I don't think the article needs to be deleted, but it is not based on reliable sources nor is it actually well sourced. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:44, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  It needs work. Part of the complication here is the multiple Gisdelas - which makes finding her specifically more difficult. Alcuin was reffed at least at some point - there are multiple possible sources for this one. Regarding the death date - I haven't seen a source discussing this. There are however multiple different dates in the sources. A better secondary discussion of this would be better - but at the moment we have a few different sources each stating something else (or not being definite at all - ranging from 808 to 814, to being alive in 814 (with death unspecified) and sent to a nunnery).Icewhiz (talk) 12:57, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think it needs a bit more than just work. For starters, it should have all the above tagged in the article as being not supported, but given the fact that the last editor who tried to tag the issues in the article got templated for vandalism ... I'm not exactly enamored of the idea of restoring the tags. May I suggest that the best way to approach this article's sourcing is to ... read some books on the subject. Sourcing by google search is not the best way to approach subjects like these where there are many people of the same or similar names in the historical record. I'd start with a good recent biography of Charlemagne... that's likely to have the current scholarly views on his daughters. And an 1898 source is outdated and shouldn't be used. There's enough scholarship on the Carolingians that relying on 120 year old works is not needed. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:03, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It has been suggested that a workaround is to merge this into page on multiple people, so if anyone finds a good biography I would be interested. Dysklyver 15:32, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Serious problems with sourcing ... 

message: While there are many issues noted above, the users opposing the deletion nomination should be commended for doing it the right way. I see flaws (and attempt to correct them), but I also see a lot of effort. Perhaps we should nominate more articles for deletion. Surtsicna (talk) 16:08, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good job