Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evan Vaughan Anwyl

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 merge to Anwyl of Tywyn Family. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Evan Vaughan Anwyl[edit]

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

No evidence of notability by our criteria. I'm not even convinced it's worth a mention in House of Aberffraw which needs some trimming to meet our criteria at WP:NOT which says "Genealogical entries. Biography articles should only be for people with some sort of fame, achievement, or perhaps notoriety. One measure of these is whether someone has been featured in several external sources (on or off-line)." Dougweller (talk) 11:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also mentioned in Anwyl of Tywyn Family which probably needs trimming also. Dougweller (talk) 12:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I was going to say keep, but there are no notability established outside the family and so can easily be merged into the main Anwyl of Tywyn Family article. The family article is one of these cases when it might be worth deleting the article and starting again. A few days ago I thought the general application of this WP principle (don't know its name) was hugely wasteful, but in this instance, certainly. I suspect the family article will prove too big for trimming, wikify and clean up. scope_creep (talk) 20:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would say merge but I would not trust Doug Weller to fairly merge the two articles without destroying them, intentionally. I fear that certain people are looking to eradicate entirely the information contained in this wiki (and its related Anwyl of Tywyn Family wiki) because they do not suit their own personal historical paradigms. I and other editors have been bullied and harassed by Doug Weller for years and I say once again that he is quite unfit to be a moderator. I consider the Anwyl of Tywyn wiki to be important and well researched in relation to the royal history of Gwynedd. I concede that Evan Vaughan Anwyl is relatively unknown (apart from Burkes Peerage) but the family from which he descends, the Anwyl of Tywyn, has been extensively documented over centuries and is of real interest to anyone studying Welsh royalty James Frankcom (talk) 21:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is not inherited. Most of the 7 GBooks hits are from Books LLC, which are copies of Wikipedia articles. Of the 2 actual sources, one has no preview and the other just mentions his name and birth year. Edward321 (talk) 02:38, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep For the same reasons explained by James Frankcom. In addition, it is nonsense to even suggest that these articles are not notable. So how many references are required? Burke's isn't sufficient? They are "The definitive guide to the genealogical history of the major royal, aristocratic and historical families of the United Kingdom, Ireland and the United States of America". As reference, the Family Record states: ANWYL of Tywyn, EVAN VAUGHAN ANWYL ; born 9 Dec 1943; educated Tywyn GS and U of Wales Aberystwyth (BSc 1967, DipEd 1968) Lineage: MORRIS ap JOHN ap MAREDUDD, of Rhiwaedog; see BLGW 2006 JONES-LLOYD formerly of Moelygarnedd. Why is the history of Wales, this family, and this man not notable? Please explain in detail as to why not. ~Geaugagrrl^talk 03:07, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~-article is only tangentially about subject, mostly about family and history of family. Non notable on own. He iro 07:53, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge would prolly be a better option, per arguments below. He iro 00:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article was notable enough to be DYK, so why is it not notable now? ~Geaugagrrl^talk 10:25, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On 7 April, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Evan Vaughan Anwyl, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Shubinator (talk) 22:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment DYK nominations are not checked for notability. I have not said that the family is not notable, and I've certainly not said the history of Wales is not notable, that's a ridiculous accusation. A record of the existence of the subject of this article does not meet our criteria at WP:BIO. Frankcom, your attack on me is inexcusable, particularly as it is your second public attack on me this year. Either retract it or take your complaint to WP:ANI if you think I'm unfit to be an Administrator (we don't have moderators). I have not harassed you or bullied you, although I have disagreed at times with your sources and with what I (and you know it's not just me) see as original research on your part. That should be a matter for civil discussion, not personal attack here. And your !vote should be based on our policies and guidelines, not your opinion of an editor. Dougweller (talk) 11:28, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted to FrankCom's talk page, hopefully we can sort this out amicably. Dougweller (talk) 12:28, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shame, instead of doing that, he's canvassed and referred to me (although not by name) as an "anti-Celt" which is just nonsense. Dougweller (talk) 10:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE - James Frankcom has been asking for some people to come here and vote to keep the article. [1] and [2] and to an IP here [3] BritishWatcher (talk) 09:53, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If not then merge, clearly lacks notability. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:55, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The notability test is surely about minor pop stars, one time television presenters, etc who have often been behind the making of their own wikipedia entry to increase their own visibility. I don't think that policy was conceived to be used in a case like this which is about the head of a dynasty who represents, almost certainly, the only surviving male heir of any of the descendants of Rhodri Mawr. He and his family are recorded in Burke's Peerage and have been written about over many years by numerous authors (most of whom are listed in the references of that article). There are also DOZENS if not HUNDREDS of articles that show someone's full ancestry, and in this case, to go back to Owain Gwynedd is crucial in establishing the Anwyl ancestry. I have been forced to ask for help from editing colleagues because I have little or no confidence in the fairness of this procedure. It's already a done deal. Doug go on mate have your own way again and just delete whatever you want. I am just about through...James Frankcom (talk) 10:07, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So you have canvassed several editors to get them to come here and vote your way, now you are voting twice? sigh BritishWatcher (talk) 10:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am just exasperated and utterly fed up with the way this website has become. I wasn't aware my every activity was being monitored. This article did not need to be targeted. It is persecution. I don't stand a chance... James Frankcom (talk) 10:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep James, everyone's activities on Wikipedia can be monitored by anyone else. I suspect you are taking this as a personal campaign or as anti-Welsh when it really isn't - it's about the accurate implementation of Wikipedia's policies. I've studied the article carefully, as well as the sources. It is true that Evan Anwyl is in Burke's and bases his claim on a late medieval geneaology. We could get into the trustworthiness of such documents - they were frequently, let us say kindly, fluid with the facts to suit the purchaser's motives and lots and lots of them are highly dubious. That said, others do say he is a person of "noble rank" and there are lots of similar articles in Wikipedia. Doug is not completely wrong and this article (it's not a "wiki" by the way, it's an "article" in Wikipedia) is not really of itself completely notable. The problem with all these things is that a chap who hasn't done anything that we class as notable but has a claim to be of royal descent might or might not be included - generally, this should be current royalty and senior nobility. I don't go for delete because there are quite a lot of relatively minor nobility of an English persuasion (see as just one of hundreds of examples Lord Richard Cavendish (1752–1781)) hanging around undeleted. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 10:43, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Anwyl of Tywyn Family - it is the family which is more notable in this case, not the individual. I certainly oppose straight deletion - there is some historical notability in the family which justifies retention of the material. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
merge per Ghmyrtle. The family may be notable as a line, but the article presented does not include enough reason to assume notability of the subject directly.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 11:11, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge looks good here. None of the cited sources are directly about him, and most of the article's text is about the family, so there's no point keeping it separate. On the other hand, it's all verifiable and could be useful for the family's article as they really do look notable. Alzarian16 (talk) 21:18, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The article makes no claim of notability for the subject (other than the connection with the family, however notability is not inherited). Johnuniq (talk) 03:14, 2 September 2010 (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.