Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bošković family

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 deleted. MBisanz ^talk 00:38, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bošković family[edit]

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

This article is pretty much a classic hodgepodge of unverifiable theories. I've tried to take a good-faith approach in fixing it by editing and tagging, but ran into problem after problem: we don't know if the family had nobility, we don't know if any members other than Ruđer and possibly his father were notable by our standards, in fact, we don't actually know anything substantial about any other members. Most of the information we do have depends on the works on either almost-anonymous non-English authors with no apparent credibility but an apparent propensity to make overreaching claims, or worse Marko Atlagić. Most of the contentious information is conspicuously dated to the period of the rise in Serbian nationalism and breakup of Yugoslavia.

When I looked into the history, I found that most of the content was added by User:HolyRomanEmperor, User:PaxEquilibrium and User:Nikola Smolenski, and as I recall, all of these users have been known to add pan-Serbian propaganda to articles on the English Wikipedia. User:GregorB recently noticed on Talk that the article is a big coat-rack, and I concur - it looks like it was basically made to serve as a crutch for calling Ruđer Bošković a Serb.

I've salvaged whatever useful content I could find into Nikola Bošković - the rest should be discarded as an egregious violation of the sourcing and original research policies. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:41, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Not taking a view either way on the article itself, but I removed the Theories section as unencyclopedic: whether they were theorized to be "pure" Serbian or "related to the Pokrajčić" or ("based partly on an oral history", of course) [what does that even mean?] "converted from Orthodoxy to Catholicism" — no matter how well sourced these statements are (and I wouldn't call them "well" sourced before I removed the section), unless they are central to who these people are, they aren't encyclopedic. --Storkk (talk) 01:23, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, and now that the theories have been gutted, the article is left as a useless shell. Everything there is basically about Ruđer and his father, and we already have articles about both. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:33, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support: After reviewing the article, I must concur with your reasoning.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:56, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support (i.e. merge as appropriate and delete). Coat rack problem aside, I don't see the case for standalone notability of the subject; everything meaningful that can be said about it can be said in either Ruđer Bošković or Nikola Bošković. GregorB (talk) 22:20, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 11 February 2013 (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.