Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coat of Arms of Coates

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. PeaceNT 13:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coat of Arms of Coates[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

This unsourced article that fails to assert notability (though falling under no CSD criterion) seems to have been created primarily so that a certain nonnotable Michael Joseph Coates can see his name in Wikipedia. For this reason I am also nominating the following article, created by the same SPA as a nonstandard sort of redirect:

I would say Keep Coat of Arms of Coates (needs work and sourcing ASAP, but thats no reason to delete, as the article is only a couple days old) and Merge Michael Coates (one sentence can be added to the first article IF the guy is actually important). - Rjd0060 05:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a coat of arms for a family name is not normally notable, and this seems to violate not a directory of genealogical data. At best this could be in Coates (an article which seems to define the notability of Michael Coates as ... someone who is entitled to a coat of arms). --Dhartung | Talk 10:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - agree that the article needs work, but it does refer to an entry in a Government-run register of notable families and seems to have historical significance for the Scottish people. Any person who has been granted a coat of arms in Scotland is, under law and the Letters Patent making the grant, "a noble of the noblesse of Scotland" ("noble" in latin is, by definition, "notable" or "known"). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Griddinnn (talk • contribs) 11:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC) — Griddinnn (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
keep because there are many other examples of pages relating to coats of arms on Wikipedia and to remove this would be inconsistent —Preceding unsigned comment added by Esther12345 (talk • contribs) 11:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC) — Esther12345 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
I would say Keep because entries in the Public Register are historically significant. If discussions regarding coats of arms were not allowed on Wikipedia then the whole Heraldry topic should be removed! —Preceding unsigned comment added by GabriellaMacArthur1234 (talk • contribs) 11:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC) — GabriellaMacArthur1234 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep - any suggestion that coats of arms (or persons entitled to them) are non notable or insignificant is incorrect to those who study the subject. Historically, arms were only granted to the nobility or the gentry who had delegated authority from the Sovereign to raise armies, pax taxes, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heraldrywatch (talk • contribs) 11:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC) — Heraldrywatch (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment. I apologize for starting what is clearly turning into a festival of sockpuppets. I have no doubt that the closing admin will keep in mind the motto Consensus unius non facit retentionem. Deor 11:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment emotive language undermines the neutrality of Wikipedia and suggests a personal, rather than objective, involvement in a subject. Users are recommended to refer to Sir Thomas Innes of Learney's work, "Scots Heraldry", to understand the importance (and notability) to the Scottish people of The Public Register and entries within it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.146.6.9 (talk) 13:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being armigerous doesn't make the subject WP:N Mayalld 13:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The repeated deletion of the {{afd}} tag from the article isn't doing it any favours. Mayalld 13:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Likewise, editing the content of this discussion isn't helping Mayalld 13:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Refer to the many other coats of arms (especially of the Polish nobility) of various families under Heraldry stubs. Who is to decide which armigerous family is WP:N and which isn't? —Preceding unsigned comment added by EvanlloydASA (talk • contribs) 13:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC) — EvanlloydASA (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete as unverifiable, possible hoax (considering the name of the coat and the lack of Ghits for the person) and non notable even if it exists. Additional disruptions will be blocked without without further warnings. --Tikiwont 14:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest Keep. The article could do with some work (suggest, e.g. merging Michael Coates and this article plus some referencing). I do not know much about the topic, but seems a legit subject area and worthy of retention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.224.159.24 (talk) 19:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC) — 81.224.159.24 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete A non-notable coat of arms of the type every country in Western Europe has hundreds or thousands of. Please note that User:Griddinnn, User:EvanlloydASA and User:Heraldrywatch, have all appeared on the same day and have only made edits to this deletion request, the article in question and/or the article about Michael Coates. This looks a heck of a lot like deliberate application of sockpuppets by User:Mppp111. Valentinian ^{T / C} 00:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And User:Esther12345 and User:GabriellaMacArthur1234 are clearly socks as well. They've made no edits except for the one here. Valentinian ^{T / C} 00:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And btw, the similar Polish articles are only kept at all because these insignia were generally used not by one family (as is the case in W. Europe) but often by 20 families or more per insignia. The Polish arms were effectively the rallying insignia of military units, and functioned as such for centuries. This gives them more notability than mere family symbols. Valentinian ^{T / C} 00:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is an interesting debate concerning the subject of notability. Based on the definition of "notability" contained in Wikipedia, I would say that the subject could potentially be notable but the article needs further work to establish this. On that basis, I would suggest that the article be kept for now but it must be improved to establish this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.146.0.41 (talk) 11:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not all coats of arms are notable, Wikipedia is not an heraldic directory and so on. This is a non-notable coat of arms, despite the flock of socks flapping round it. HeartofaDog (talk) 14:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This debate is becoming very difficult to keep track of, with multiple SPA editors chipping in, and allegations of sockpuppetry, so let us settle that question! Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Mppp111 Mayalld 12:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- CLOSING ADMIN See SSP case. This is an obvious sock and vote stacking case. Mppp111 and 5 socks are blocked, tagged, and categorized as his socks. Strongly suggest not counting input from these users. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:14, 12 November 2007 (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.