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. Deleting based on the investigations of participants. Thanks everyone for your participation and assuming good faith. Missvain (talk) 18:32, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Duchy of Dol-Combourg[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

There was no such thing as the Duchy of Dol-Combourg. This page is either a hoax or a misunderstanding. Its creator has long been banned. There are no results at either Google Books or Google Scholar for any of the following terms: "Duchy of Dol-Combourg", "Duchy of Dol", "Duchy of Combourg", "Duché de Dol-Combourg", "Duché de Dol", "Duché de Combourg". There was a lordship of Combourg and is ruling family was called the Dol-Combourg, but this page isn't about it or them in any way. The reference to the Holy Roman Empire is nonsense. The list of bishops is just duplicated from the real article on the bishopric. There are no sources, there is no way of improving or fixing this and the title is totally made-up. Srnec (talk) 18:35, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The amount of details in the article cited to absolutely no sources is certainly suspicious. But, even if this was not an intentional hoax, but a well-meaning mistake, it still should not be retained due to the utter lack of sources. Rorshacma (talk) 22:21, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:52, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:52, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:52, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lots of real (if obscure) people mentioned but none of them link back to this mythical duchy. No sources at all despite the apparent depth of coverage. Looks like a hoax. — Sirfurboy (talk) 09:13, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ETA: This source[1] finds mention of a seigneury (not a duchy) of Dol-Combourg, but this source itself is poorly referenced and self published. Maybe it is just a misunderstanding and not a hoax, but it is still wrong and wholly unsourced, so deletion remains appropriate. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 11:36, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And another source (in French) confirming the seigneurie Dol-Combourg (although French Wikipedia speaks only of "des seigneurs de Combourg" [[2]] can be found here.[3]. This book confirms the French list saying "après la mort de Jean, seigneur de Dol-Combourg, en 1162..." so Jean died in 1162 which is what French Wikipedia says. This page has a completely different list for this imaginary Duchy. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 11:55, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's a real castle, the Château de Combourg, so it's not likely to be a hoax. More likely some sort of linguistic confusion , and possibly variations in the rank/title of the seigneur over the centuries.IceFishing (talk) 23:43, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- The content appears to be a cut and paste job from Ancient Diocese of Dol. As I read the article, it was clear to me that it was not about a Duchy, but about a bishopric, claiming metropolitan status. The conflict with Tours described may have been part of a counterpart of the attempts by the medieval Dukes of Brittany to be independent of the French crown. This would not haver been part of the Holy Roman Empire after the death of Charlemagne, or possibly one of his early descendants, before the title of Emperor became attached to the German ruler. It is not exactly a hoax, but probably fake news or a variety of distorted history. I wondered about a redirect, but think plain deletion is better. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:19, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V. It's not clear it actually existed. If this were fictional, it could be notable like Grand Fenwick, but it's too difficult to source. Bearian (talk) 18:13, 22 January 2020 (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.