Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Family tree of the Malaspina family

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:50, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Family tree of the Malaspina family

[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Family tree of the Malaspina family (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I do not see the notability of this family tree and there are no citations. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Genealogy. "Family histories should be presented only where appropriate to support the reader's understanding of a notable topic." and "Do not contribute original research to Wikipedia. Sources to verify genealogical information in Wikipedia should follow Wikipedia's verifiability guidelines" (since there are no citations) Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 01:34, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 01:34, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@EDG 543: Hi! You can't put the page into deletion when it clearly says it is in construction! I'm adding sources in a draft page, where I will complete the article as soon as I can, and then hopefully transfer it to public view. But I need TIME! And the matter is important. The family is big and ruled in an important part of Northern Italy. Greetings, Mhmrodrigues (talk) 01:46, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mhmrodrigues: The article did not indicate that it was under construction when it was nominated and, upon checking just a second ago, it still does not. I was going to move it to the draftspace, but it appears there is already a draft there. I'm a little confused now. Are you working on two separate articles with the same name? Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 03:01, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@EDG 543: Hi! It wasn't me who made the move to the draft and I didn't notice that the "under construction" was erased by the user who made the move for me. I'll edit now in the draft space, with time, as this family tree is big. Sorry for the inconvenience... Greetings, Mhmrodrigues (talk) 04:18, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mhmrodrigues, I am still a little confused. If the article had simply been moved to the draftspace, their wouldn't still be one in the mainspace. You are more than welcome to continue working on the draft, but the copy that is in the mainspace is not ready to be there yet. If you are working on both of them, it could be moved to a subpage of your userpage. Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 13:50, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@EDG 543: If the draft will be kept intact after deleting, and if I'm able to restore the page once the draft is complete, then I don't mind if you delete the page for now. Otherwise, then, I won't agree with its deletion. Mhmrodrigues (talk) 13:56, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mhmrodrigues, it could be moved to User:Mhmrodrigues/Family tree of the Malaspina family if you still wish to work on it outside of the mainspace. Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 14:00, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@EDG 543: I would rather not move the text from place to place. I'll edit the page in the draft, as where it is now. There's no need to complicate things even more. You know now that the page is being developed, and, as you have seen, I've put again the sign of maintenance in the main page. I think that now it shouldn't bother the possible visitors of the page. I only ask to remove the delete warning, please. Greetings, Mhmrodrigues (talk) 14:58, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@EDG 543: By the way, if you want, when I finish the page, I'll notify you, in the case you have infomation about the family or specific members, so you can add. The same applies to the other people here. Greetings, Mhmrodrigues (talk) 15:06, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mhmrodrigues, the deletion notice can't be removed until the discussion has been completed. While the article is under-construction, the mainspace is not meant to house under-construction articles for long, that is why the draftspace exists. Even if you look past that, some users have brought up notability concerns as well as possible original research due to the lack of sources. Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 17:21, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@EDG 543: But who guarantees that, if the page is deleted and I create the page again once I finish it, it won't be deleted once more? And I have sources. I put them in the Bibliography. Notability? For God's sake, it is the Malaspina family, an italian noble family! A family is important as a whole! Why cover the Massa-Carrara and Fosdinovo branches and forget the members of the other branches? Mhmrodrigues (talk) 17:32, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mhmrodrigues: If the page is deleted, it should not be recreated unless it is substantially different in topic and scope. —Kbabej (talk) 18:05, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mhmrodrigues, please click this link. This is the article in discussion, not the draft. There is no bibliography in the draft. There are also only two people included in the entire article that are linked to their own articles, which isn't really much considering how many people are listed. You also have to remember (quoting Wikipedia:WikiProject Genealogy) "Wikipedia is not a genealogy. Family histories should be presented only where appropriate to support the reader's understanding of a notable topic." How does this article do that? Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 18:14, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@EDG 543: These authors made complete family trees of the family, that's why there's so many people in the two names of the Bibliography. The genealogy will support the understanding of the Malaspinas by detailing how each branch was created. The Spino Secco branch is very poorly developed in the Malaspina page. I'm trying to establish a relation between the branches and the terriories they ruled, and I can only do that if a family tree is available, given the extension. It's similar to the many branches of the House of Wettin, whose table of rulers (which I intend to create also for the Malaspinas in the Malaspina family page) can be viewed in the page List of rulers of Saxony. Mhmrodrigues (talk) 18:38, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Kbabej: Hi! No, it's not. Can you make me a list of ALL rulers of the family based just on the information in the page (BTW some of the successions which are eventually presented are wrong). With a family tree, we will know better and thoroughly the members of the family (not just Fosdinovo, Massa-Carrara and some scratchy succession lists!!!) Mhmrodrigues (talk) 04:18, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it. Obviously. I'm editing the page in a draft, but it will be a page soon. Mhmrodrigues (talk) 04:18, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:GNG, fails WP:ANYBIO; so this isn't a notable subject. Further, fails pillar policy WP:NOT, as original research. Mhmrodrigues, an encyclopedia isn't the place to record history. Rather, it's a place to summarize and paraphrase what others have already written in reliable sources. Not one single thing can come from things you know, have been told, have seen or have induced or deduced. Nothing. At all. The entire content of what you are trying to contribute must be paraphrased from reliable published sources. The article was draftified once for you to work on outside the encyclopedia. You reversed that, so this is what happens. 174.254.192.213 (talk) 04:29, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@174.254.192.213: Hi! It's not from an encyclopedia! Litta and Branchi are independent authors. If I can't find other sources it's because I couldn't find them on Internet. Google only allows me to see volume II of Branchi's work, and Litta is available in the Gallica page. It's frustrating when you can't find what you want afte searching a lot, and above that, people who accuse you of not doing your work properly! Wikipedia should avoid original research, and this family tree is not original! Is based on Litta and Branchi's works, as shown in the Bibliography. The sketchy Pregola branch is based on a website that I'm to include in Bibkiography too! I just need TIME! Mhmrodrigues (talk) 12:09, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:11, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Spiderone: Hi! This artcile will obviously support the Malaspina family article, by offering a more complete family tree that was not shown in the page of the Malaspinas. Mhmrodrigues (talk) 12:09, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why do I have to justify myself everytime? Aren't my reasons enough? Can't you wait for me to finish the draft and then judge? Please, understand my point of view. It is an article IN CONSTRUCTION. Mhmrodrigues (talk) 12:09, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If the article isn't ready then why did you move it out of the draft space? Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:13, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Praxidicae:, you moved my article to draft. Can you support me here, please? Mhmrodrigues (talk) 12:19, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@JJMC89: @EDG 543: @Praxidicae: @Spiderone: @Kbabej: Can someone explain me why was the draft deleted when it is the page that is in risk of deletion? I asked for time to submit my draft! Mhmrodrigues (talk) 14:40, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am guessing because it's wildly out of WP:SCOPE, as is this article. Please also don't mass ping users to AFD. CUPIDICAE💕 14:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mhmrodrigues, the user who performed the action merged the draft with this article, a questionable decision in my opinion. It does, however, clear up the space so that this article can be moved to the draftspace while it is under construction...If you would prefer that over potential deletion. Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 14:44, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
EDG 543 Now I'm confused. So, I didn't move the article to the draftspace in the first place...I'll have to create a new draft. Luckily I was afraid that this could happen and saved my editions elsewhere... Greetings, Mhmrodrigues (talk) 14:53, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This should not be moved to draft while the AFD is ongoing as it's still out of scope. CUPIDICAE💕 14:54, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done! Moved to a new draft! Praxidicae sorry, I've only seen your message now. I have to do something as no one is on my side... - Mhmrodrigues (talk) 15:00, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Praxidicae EDG 543 The alternative is to publish the family tree in the Malaspina family page... Mhmrodrigues (talk) 15:02, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mhmrodrigues, friend, you should not have copy/pasted the article to the draft, it needed to be physically moved from here to there, which I or another editor could have done for you. Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 15:05, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • EDG 543 this is bad advice, as the AFD is already ongoing and has multiple comments from other people other than the nom and creator, it should not be moved to draftspace unless the AFD concludes it should be drafitified. Mhmrodrigues incorporating this into the main article is still inappropriate as Wikipedia is not a genealogy service and it requires original resesarch which is not allowed. CUPIDICAE💕 15:08, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Praxidicae, I fully agree (I was the one who nominated it for deletion in the first place). However, the author insists that the article has much work to do, and I thought it at least deserved a chance as a draft while he completed it. Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 15:24, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
EDG 543 Thank you for your support, but I would only add more branches. I've already recognized that this was a bad idea. Praxidicae I'll do, however, the table of rulers, in the Malaspina family page. Mhmrodrigues (talk) 15:30, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong delete per my previous comments. This is not a candidate for draftification or merging as it is in violation of the purpose of Wikipedia. This is not an ancestry service, every member of any given family with notable people does not make every single one themselves notable. It also requires original research and the family tree itself is not subject to independent reliable sources. CUPIDICAE💕 15:10, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Praxidicae Ok, I understand your point. Very well, I won't oppose. I'll delete my draft myself. Mhmrodrigues (talk) 15:21, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Praxidicae I've emptied the draft, but I can't find the deletion button. Can you do it for me, please? Mhmrodrigues (talk) 15:24, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Praxidicae EDG 543 I've taken for example the German genealogical lists (Stammlists), but it seems that's not possible in the English Wikipedia. Sorry, I thought otherwise... Mhmrodrigues (talk) 15:29, 9 February 2021 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Family_tree_of_the_Malaspina_family&oldid=1007003297"