Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lord Ygo III of Galama

Lord Ygo III of Galama

An alert user tagged this article as a suspected hoax. Google has no idea who he is, aside from Wikipedia itself. Yechiel Man 08:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This seems suspiciously like the Stuedgar mess we had a few weeks ago. I could research this more thoroughly but I doubt I will find anything. Adam Bishop 08:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Confused - Article states he died in 1095, but also that he died that the Siege of Antioch, which occurred in 1097. However, there is quite the, uh, large series of articles about this guy, and his family, all written by User:Haggawaga - Oegawagga, or his IP - and this is one of them. In fact, all of his articles are equally unknown. This is very worrying. --Haemo 08:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Look at all of these:

Comment. Ygo Gales Galama was created by Ezza61, who I'm pretty sure is a different person, although he/she might be the "more knowledgeable" person needed in this situation. Their comments on Haggawaga - Oegawagga's talk page seem to suggest a lot of the article may in fact be incorrect and OR. Ford MF 09:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Year of death. This genealogical website claims Ygo III died in 1099. Ford MF 09:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - Comment People's personal genealogical websites can say anything and are not reliable sources satisfying WP:A. They might also be echoing spurious info picked up from Wikipedia or a mirror site. Articles need to be grounded in published sources for events of this antiquity. Edison 13:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He's also extensively edited related articles. We need someone more knowledgeable to look at this. --Haemo 08:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't saying it was a citeable website, I was just adding that there was a third DOD out there. Ford MF 17:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I couldn't find any worthwhile Google info either, but I don't think it's a hoax, just google-deficient. The article needs sources badly. The creating user, User:Haggawaga - Oegawagga, has, so far as I can tell, no history of bad edits, inaccuracy or hoax-creating (although he does claim to be 97 years old!) He also claims the article is sourced by several Dutch/Frisian publications. The guy is kinda new to Wiki (or this Wiki) and I think he should be encouraged to fill out some citation templates. I don't think deletion is useful here. Ford MF 09:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'DeleteLord Ygo III of Galama, Keep Pier Gerlofs Donia, Delete the rest. The Lord Ygo III article contains some nonsense and is badly written. It says he lived from (1139-1198), and that he died in 1099. Go back to the first version, and it said he lived (1148-1199). This suggests the dates were improvised, or that if the article was written from reliable sources, they were not closely examined. It is sourced to family histories without publication info to show that they are reliable and independent sources satisfying WP:A. The whole series of genealogical articles should go except for Pier Gerlofs Donia, who seems to be a folk hero with a statue. There have been numerous hoaxes on Wikipedia about supposed historical figures referenced to obscure or madeup references, and there have been recent other cases of people creating huge collections of articles about people sourced to privately printed genealogies and websites, which have been deleted. Perhaps someone able to access sources in Frisian or whatever can find reliable and independent sources by the end of the deletion period. The article on the Siege of Antioch has a number of accessible references, which someone could check to vet the details of this story for plausibility. If kept, this whole set of Galama family articles needs help from a native speaker of English. We can get along for a while without a set of badly written articles, careless with dates, about claimed historical figures who are little known outside a couple of dubious non-English sources which are just family genealogies. Edison 13:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article, and delete parts of the Death at Antioch-section; he didn't die there, another Frisian noble of less importance died that way the day; I confused them. And change the year of death to 1199, as the site mentions, and write it is of unknown cousrses.But not delete he article; it doesn't do no harm at all. The man has lived. And he was a crusader. And about the Galama-family; they existed and where historically correct and veriable figures; read the Schieringers and Vetkopers-artice (which I not maded). Same goes for Pier Gerlofs Donia. So please, don't delete this article; keep it, and shorten or remove the things mentioned above at first. Keep it; please. -)-(-H- (|-|) -O-)-(- 13:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete most per Edison, weakly, unless some kind of reliable source is found, in any language. I'd also observe that Image:Ygo II Galama - The great crusader.jpg looks suspiciously like a modern confection. It may have once been a photograph of a tomb relief that was converted into black and white line art, then saved as a JPG. This process does not inspire confidence. FWIW, the name "Galama" seems to be borne by a number of Frisians or Netherlands people, including Otto Galama Houtrouw. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Sure it needs references, tag it. I have worked with the creator and have no reason to assume anything other than good faith. Just because google has not heard of it does not mean it does not exist. Ask the user to provide references where he got his information? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, since there is so much information about the First Crusade, in books and online, the fact that Google has not heard of him is significant. And as I said, he is not mentioned in any books about the First Crusade. But if Haggawaga has confused him with someone else I guess that answers my concern. (But I wonder who he has confused him with.) Adam Bishop 14:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Galama concerns:

Suggest you contact http://www.tresoar.nl/ the Fries Historisch en Letterkundig Centrum, they should confirm for you the existence of the Galama family and the role they played in Friesian history starting from Ygo Galama the fifth potestaat of Friesland in 876. Ezza61 15:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- Carom 15:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Adam. Srnec 19:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We can't take chances on hoaxes. If a source can't be found, it has to go. It's not like there aren't plenty of detailed books on the Crusades out there. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article sounds like throwing spaghetti at the wall to see if it sticks.:Put a bunch of statements of uncertain validity in an article, then remove the ones shown to be wrong, while asserting that the family is well known. Some of this may be legend, but anything in the article must be well sourced. Don't just write a lot of stuff and assert that someday someone will foind sources for it. It had to come from somewhere. If the source is family history lore, then it is not reliable to keep. Find what is in reliable books and if anything can be found, keep that, as a stub if necessary. Or delete (as I said above) if not even that can be found. There is confusion and conflation in this and several of the other articles. Might be best to start over with an article based on good sources. Edison 21:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Suspicious amount of detail about his death, especially two and a half hours to die - what, they had watches in the Crusades? Clarityfiend 22:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Evidence This is a case where we can ask for specific page citations to published references, and posisble for quaotations of the relevant paragraphs. There is at least some historical basis for the family names: The Sixteenth Century Journal v.12 no.2 p. 43-60 (1981)(includes Taco Galama, Seerp Galama, & Hatman Galama, (& also Epo, Douwe, Taco, Idzard & Foppe Douma ) in its list of 16th century minor nobility on p.55-56, and Auke Galama on p.53. available at JStor, so they apparently are old families. more if I have a chance. DGG 00:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep I think we should keep this artickle, Haggawaga - Oegawagga is still bussy improving the artickle. The Honorable Kermanshahi 10:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haggawaga - Oegawagga is busy removing tags that he does not like. He has done nothing to improve the article but preserve its contradictions in dates. Srnec 16:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed the dates; and that way removed the that way becoming useless contradiction-template. I guess most of the other templates are rightfull ones. -)-(-H- (|-|) -O-)-(- 07:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think, changings need to be done, not deleting whole articles! -)-(-H- (|-|) -O-)-(- 07:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion

Remove the title "lord"
The title Ygo III is uncertian, so should me reverred to as "sometimes called Ygo III...."
Remove the picture
Reduce the size of the lemma to a couple of sentences
Killed in battle ? More obvious is that he died of starvation, many did on that peninsula
Make wiki-links to battle of Antiochia
Hunt down more crusaders

Bornestera 20:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can I make a suggestion (or two). I think the original author confused Ygo II Galama with the crusader Galama whose correct name is Ygo Joukes Galama who died well after the siege. There is no references that mention a Ygo III. Direct ascendants of Ygo Joukes include (his father Jouke Ygos Galama) then believe it or not, in order, Ygo Ygos II Galama, Ygo Ygos Galama, Ygo II Galama and Ygo Galama...but no Ygo III. The title of the article should be Ygo Joukes Galama ..(alt. spelling Galema). The 'after his death' business seems exaggerated unless ref can be provided I would remove it. Any reference to a fictional Count Nychlenborch should be removed and there is no castle Nychlenborch I believe.Ezza61 23:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think, changings need to be done, not deleting whole articles! -)-(-H- (|-|) -O-)-(- 07:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep , but gretly improve; the conclusion above is bounding, and totally right. The article is important, and sure enough evidence is provided to see this man has lived, long ago. But most of the article is nonsense, and so a major cleanup seems to be the only solution. Sory, H.O, but loads of work needs to be done. Watch the articles talk page, for instance! I just wanna make clear, improving is better than deleting; think about what I said! Murlock 12:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]