Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Schalliol

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. Trebor 11:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Schalliol

Schalliol (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Even after removing some spammy and non-notable content from this article, I still get a vanispamcruftisement with little encyclopedic content, if any. Also fails WP:RS and WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. Húsönd 03:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as vanispamicruftiwhatchamacallit. Definitely has no encyclopedic content, no reliable sources, and thus no purpose. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 03:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep now; name seems to have some merit per Lankiveil. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 05:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - definitely vanispamcruftisement. MER-C 03:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, book ad, and indiscriminate genealogical information. Nobody named Schalliol is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article, so this can't even serve as a disambiguation page. --Dhartung | Talk 04:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
• Please do not delete, will update with reliable sources--Schalliol 04:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep, the history of the family name might just push this over the line. Still need to get rid of the ridiculous promotion for the book though. Lankiveil 05:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC).

• I took care of some of the book promotion. Given the name's history, I'm switching to a weak keep too. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 05:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Pray tell, anyone, why is a family name history worthy of an article? Please provide sources showing the notability of this particular family name versus other family names. All names have "history" and as an encyclopedia we are not indiscriminate.--Dhartung | Talk 09:02, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. It's just a name. I've got one; you've got one. Nothing special here. BTLizard 09:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
• delete I am not clear on the rationale for the weak keeps. There seems nothing notable here. —Gaff ^ταλκ 22:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

comment Okay, after reviewing some work done on the article, I can see where the weak keeps are coming from, but still am keeping my vote. This is a tough one. Still, the book references appear to be published by a lesser known house Belle Publications specializing in geneology (vanity press?). This dubious bit, along with my concerns about conflict of interests here make me wonder. —Gaff ^ταλκ 20:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep I understand the delete arguments too but think this name seems to have some slight uniqueness and may be worth keeping. Agnetha1234 14:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep An interesting history. although I'd like to see more of the historical content. UPDATE: I added additional content. Aosxseedx
• Removed the promotion of the book per others' comments and added, along with another user, a significant amount of new content and references. I would say Keep, although I recognize that as one of the principal authors I may be baises. Nonethless, there seems to be a good degree of signifcance in the entry, and searching worldwide wikipedia shows many more valuable pieces that need to be translated. --Schalliol 05:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Notable name for documented single-point converging lineage and historically significant background. Article quality signicantly improved since deletion suggestion. As such, the article now meets WP:RS and WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. Metroblossom 14:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Conflict of interest disclosure: User:Metroblossom was the contributor of this article.—Gaff ^ταλκ 03:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

-- Thank you, Gaff. I thought that would be clear based on the record of the article. My apologies. That said, I believe this article is wholly different from my initial creation. It is much improved and I stand by my comments. It's too bad additional people haven't reviewed this improved version. Metroblossom 06:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I can't see any improvement. Still bears no resemblance to an encyclopedic article.--Húsönd 13:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Husond, can you please be more specific? Clearly, there are a number of people who believe it qualifies as a keep or a weak keep, even before the improvements. My initial comment above stands. Metroblossom 14:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, for starters, it has no definition of "Schalliol" (all encyclopedic articles start with a description of what the subject is). It doesn't say why is this particular surname so notable that justifies having an article of its own. Trivial content. People stated as "notable" do not have Wikipedia articles. They should, and only if they survived notability concerns should they be included as notable on this article.--Húsönd 15:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• Coat of Arms (blazon) added. I will add reference text from the referring book noting reference to "one of the notable families of the Dauphiné" when I have a chance and noting the significance of this particular blazon.
• Strong delete per above delete comments, especially that of BTLizard G1ggy! 11:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

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.