Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/De'Anyers 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 no consensus‎. The discussion raised important questions about sourcing that should continue to be discussed, but after two relists there was no consensus to delete the page or for any alternative. RL0919 (talk) 14:55, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

De'Anyers family

[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)

WP:NOTGENEALOGY. I don't think any reliable sources cited or available elsewhere provide significant coverage of the article subject, instead providing lots of tangential mentions that do not by themselves confer notability. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:44, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, History, Royalty and nobility, and United Kingdom. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:44, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an accurrate statement, the sources listed are entirley comprehensive, I ask which ones precisely are 'tangential'.

Notability is sufficent as seen in the extensive sources primary and secondary. Starktoncollosal (talk) 08:21, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to discuss which sources in particular do not provide significant coverage and see where we go from there, I am aware that there are yes a significant number of sources used which may convey this, however are consolidated by a number of reliable and imparital sources used in this article as well as other articles of a similar nature which cover landed families. Starktoncollosal (talk) 08:25, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

proposing Keep, I have had a look through the source list comprehensivley and would very much like to discuss this and see if we can reach a consensus.at some point ? several main sources used for the article are all impartial and well known genealogical publications - Burkes, Ormerods, ect. The Battle Abbey Role by the Duchess of Cleveland published I believe in the 1890s covering the families on the scroll, also a book on a biography of the family. Other verified wikipedia pages exist for 3 members of the family listed on the page as well as others not mentioned (artists William Daniell and Thomas Daniell, and Thomas Daniel)

The issue is perhaps the interchangable use of De'Anyers and Daniell between sources however this I have found to be the historical case.. in looking to upload several Van Dyck portraits (Peter Daniell MP) and his sister and aunt I have found them to be listed as De'Anyers however it is the same family.

I am happy to explore and make any edits you may suggest ? (I wondered if perhaps some paragraphs could be slimmed down slightly). However based on pages existing for other identical landed families in Cheshire (several of whom intermarried and are included in the Daniell article) and based on historical significance, and the other reasons mentioned It has its place on wiki, and just needs fleshing out being comparativley newer, which I was activley working on :). Starktoncollosal (talk) 00:03, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources go into significant prose depth on the family? Keep in mind that genealogies and other directories are not SIGCOV. Coverage of individual members of the family does not count towards notability of the family. Primary sources and passing mentions do not count at all. JoelleJay (talk) 23:55, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

source 6 - A Biography written on the family, and 1 certainly are the first to spring to mind. Can I ask the issue with primary sources coming from an academic writing background in early modern history i thought inclusion of these would bolster an articles notability and conslodiate its relevance ? I understand that for one or two members having pages not warranting a notability claim but surley the case can be made for, as seen in other noble families pages, members consistently throughout an extended time period having influence (as nobility did), - thus warranting notability ? Starktoncollosal (talk) 19:12, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Starktoncollosal Source 6 was written in 1876. Source 1 was written in 1673! While I cannot access the latter, the former is essentially a family tree written out in prose. Significantly better sourcing is needed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:54, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, could you suggest what kind of sources you are looking for ? I thought that the 1876 Biography was well sourced in its own bibliography however I do agree with you, in that case could we possibly reach a consensus that on basis of introducing a more thorough source that the article no longer be marked for deletion and instead voted ~~keep.~~

look forward to your advise and what sources would be best, Stark Starktoncollosal (talk) 15:45, 28 July 2024 (UTC) (striking duplicate vote Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:03, 6 August 2024 (UTC))[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:48, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 14:25, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have in my files, x7 portraits of Daniell/De'Anyers mentioned in this article sourced online by Anthony Van Dyck, several by Sir Godfrey Kneller and Robert Walker also.

I see omitted from the article mention of John and Jane Daniell both slightly infamous writers with much information available online - John being from the Cheshire family and in the household of the Robert Devereux, Jane a gentlewoman to Frances Walsingham.. both of whom they later extorted and blackmailed. would be worth a mention.

The article overall has lots of sources in the bibliography and the information seems largely relevant however inclusion of a couple more consolidate ones is advised to bolster this,

However with somewhat consistent historical relevance over the generations since the 14th century in the north west also titleholders in France, it does appear that the family are of significant enough notability to retain and keep the page. Markievcks (talk) 17:28, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is very interestimg are these available on Wikimedia ? Would be great to include these pictures. I have come across John and Jane Daniell and their respective manuscripts and will get a mention definitley somewhere at somepoint as well as the Normandy branch in some more detail.

could you review my reply above to previous ones regarding sources and what kind of one would bolster the article.

Hoping that this is resulting in a consensus starting to be reached ?? Starktoncollosal (talk) 14:30, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

bumping discussion need some external feedback this has been active since 17th July would be hugely grateful to get it sorted. Starktoncollosal (talk) 01:04, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The pictures are not yet on wikimedia, will get them uploaded over the next couple days. Markievcks (talk) 22:29, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to "bump", this isn't a discussion board, this discussion has its own page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:01, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize however surley the goal is to try and resolve deletion request and reach a consensus. I access this page through clicking participate in the "deletion discussion" I assumed this was a discussionary page and am just looking to try and generate slightly more active participation. Starktoncollosal (talk) 17:10, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you think this page needs more participants, you can promote it. The rules for good promotion are here at WP:APPNOTE. Short version, so long as the posts you make do not attempt to persuade people (do that here instead) and do not target only people whom you think will agree with you, you can shout it from the rooftops. My rule of thumb is that people reading my promotion text should not know which side of the issue I'm on. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:06, 7 August 2024 (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.