Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clan Steverson
- 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. PhilKnight (talk) 19:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Clan Steverson[edit]
- Clan Steverson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Contested prod. Article contents are unverifiable. Prod removed with the addition of sources, but none of them are about the clan Steverson. As I said on the article talk page: the article lumps all people with a name resembling Steverson together, and claims that they all belong to a clan. Where is the evidence for that? There are 12 distinct Google hits for Clan Steverson outside Wikipedia[1]. There are no reliable sources that mention Clan Steverson (no books[2], articles[3], newspapers,[4] ... looking for "Steverson clan" gives even less results). The sources used; Nationmaster is a copy of Wikipedia (see the bottom of that page); the second source lists a whole bunch of names related to the border wars: anything resembling Steverson is clearly absent though; the third source discusses Adlai Stevenson, but does not mention Scotland, clans, or Steverson. There is no evidence of a clan Steverson to which all these people belong. There is some evidence of a clan Stevenson, which Robert Louis Stevenson tried to establish / fabricate, but that is a different thing and would better be rewritten from scratch (and with good sources). Fram (talk) 07:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete because of missing sources / faked references: The given sources are not only, as the nominator remarks, off-topic (do not mention the Clan Steverson), but don't even support the statements which they are cited for. Regards, HaeB (talk) 12:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - genealogical vanity page. No sources of substance, no verifiable assertion of notability.HeartofaDog (talk) 15:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- delete - No evidence this is a recognised Scottish clan. Also, a GoogleBook search turns up absolutely nothing, not a good a sign for a supposedly notable clan/family. Pretty clear i think this is non notable.--Celtus (talk) 05:30, 22 August 2008 (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.