Hi Pip, not sure if you are being sarcastic? (So difficult to do that well on internet chats!) Obviously if there is no evidence AT ALL for someone, then we should not have a profile for them. HOWEVER, in this particular case I was just saying that maybe there is a type of evidence for the existence of "a" Ragnar Lothbrook, but not good evidence for all of the genealogical connections proposed for him belonging to the SAME person.
So I understood the question to be about whether there should be ONE profile, not ANY profile. If there were a question about whether there should be ANY profile, then I'd need to look into it differently. I suppose there are reasonable arguments for having no profile.
As to the question of using Wikitree's past norms as a standard I think we should not do that. The reason is simply that everyone seems to agree that Wikitree wants to improve the quality beyond what it had in the past. This implies disconnecting and removing people sometimes. We should be open to such proposals.
One of the counter arguments to removing such people who exist in many genealogies entirely is that they keep getting re-inserted, and therefore that it makes sense to leave in an article for a dubious person as a sort of place holder and note concerning research. I'd say this argument is rightfully controversial but tends to win the day often in cases where there is only one myth which fills a gap in the family tree, and no conflicting theories. I'm not 100% comfortable with that, but I think the reasons for concern are so obvious that I'll keep the post from getting longer and stop here.
