Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Count de Salis-Soglio

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 keep. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:15, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Count de Salis-Soglio[edit]

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

This reads like a combination of unsourced genealogy, original research, and, I don't know, aristo-cruft?

This title of nobility was in fact created by the Holy Roman Emperor, but it seems to have existed only on paper, as a courtesy, and to have had no political or other significance or effect. Peter von Salis (another awful article) was indeed created Count in 1748, but he was Swiss (i.e., not a subject of the Emperor) and the authoritative Historical Dictionary of Switzerland in his biography mentions this title only in passing and about his son not at all, nor does the article about the house of Salis. This indicates that this title had very little significance to Peter von Salis or his heirs, or to the world at large, and an article about it lacks the required notability for lack of substantial coverage in reliable sources.

What would be notable is the Swiss noble house of Salis itself (de:Salis (Adelsgeschlecht)), and its members, which include some of the more prominent Swiss political and military leaders of the 18th and 19th century – but for their major influence on Swiss and minor influence on European history, not for their association with an essentially immaterial Austrian title of nobility. Incidentally, the German WP and the HDS article indicate that collecting foreign titles of nobility was something of a hobby of the Salis family, as they (or some of them) were also German Imperial Reichsfreiherrn, French counts, and Jonkheers and barons of the Netherlands, perhaps on account of their military and mercenary careers with various European powers. I haven't even tried to check whether somebody tried to create articles for all of these titles too... Sandstein 18:57, 28 September 2015 (UTC) Updated after the comment by Rodolph below.[reply]

Most European titles have no political or other significance or effect.Rodolph (talk) 18:52, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems it is a matter of taste as to whether you like aristocrats or not. English, Great British and UK peerages have pages for the titles concerned, so too this family, which was unusual in that it had a Royal Licence to use the title officially in the UK.Rodolph (talk) 18:55, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm indifferent to nobility as such, but even titles of nobility must conform to our WP:GNG guideline, which says: no significant coverage in reliable sources – no article. I agree that we should cover the family of Salis, which is very notable, but not this particular foreign (courtesy?) title of theirs. It can be mentioned briefly in an article about them. Sandstein 19:00, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is no more a courtesy title than is the Dukedom of Devonshire one. It is a real thing. It is no less notable than many. I don't see why pulling things down helps? What does 'no significant coverage in reliable sources – no article' mean? Rodolph (talk) 19:05, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Example of such a page: Duke of Devonshire.Rodolph (talk) 19:07, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What notability means is that we have a guideline at WP:N that tells us what kind of sources are required for something to have an article, including noble titles. Such sources are not present here. Just because we have articles about other titles does not mean that we must have articles about all, see WP:WAX. Sandstein 19:11, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. I'll endeavor now to justify the article.Rodolph (talk) 19:23, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is covered in both Burke's & Debrett's Peerage. That's enough to ring the notability bell. Beyond which, while it's by no means carved in stone, there has been a strong tendency in AfD to give a degree of presumptive notability to aristocratic families. One of the problems with some of the older ones is that sources can be difficult to come by for a lot of information. You deal with what's available. A lot of the sources cited are eminently reliable. They are unfortunately also somewhat obscure,very old, and as noted in the related AfD often in private collections. None of which means they are unreliable or inadequate as sources for the purposes of satisfying GNG and or BASIC. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:09, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'd go along with a keep, but only if somebody edits out the trivia and cruft, of which there's so much it might have to be started from scratch. Bearian (talk) 16:32, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:52, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:52, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:52, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:52, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We do generally have articles about titles. We certainly have articles about all or most peerages granted in the United Kingdom. And this is a rarity in that it's a foreign title which was explicitly permitted by the Crown to be used by a British subject. I think it's sufficiently notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:23, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:50, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A small point but above Sandstein mentions about his son that links to not his son but some cousin. Meanwhile, here again is a link to Peter de Salis, who was created count in 1748. (If the Swiss dictionary of historical biography is a bit dismissive of the Salis it might be because their section was written by a member of their rival clan, a Planta. The Swiss biographical dictionary does'nt mention the comital elevation, perhaps because being Swiss it has a healthy scepticism to such things, reflected in what was said at the time by jealous cousins of the new count, that the enoblement would create: «magior superbia, ostentazione e spese per la Casa», "greater haughtiness, ostentation and expenses for the House").Rodolph (talk) 09:14, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
By 1930/32 there were only 13 British families with hereditary Royal Licences and Authority to use foreign titles in the UK, (see: 547,423/5, 21/7/30, HM The King (Private Secretary) gives HM's views on H.O. suggestions on Royal Licenses for the use of Foreign Titles, to Sir M Delevingne). Most if not all of those with Royal Licences tended to get listed in the peerages (Burke's/Debrett's/etc) in their own short section.Rodolph (talk) 09:06, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you are willing to put in the research time, I don't see why this article couldn't with some cleanup be part of a more general article headed Foreign titles granted royal license in the UK or equivalent. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:02, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Splendid idea, especially as François R. Velde of Heraldica has done all the work, compiling and listing from Home Office sources.Rodolph (talk) 17:54, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:08, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and eventually move to "House of Salis-Soglio" or simply "Salis-Soglio" (see Talk:Count de Salis-Seewis for an explanation of a similar ex-AfD article). - HyperGaruda (talk) 18:01, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the KEEP. But to move to House of Salis-Soglio would be wrong as the houses of Salis-Soglio are a much larger issue. This is a page that is supposed to deal with just the Counts de Salis-Soglio.Rodolph (talk) 18:19, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Compared to for example the House of Habsburg, the House of Salis-Soglio is tiny, yet the house of Habsburg can manage to have everything on one page. Anyways, the correct noble title would be "Count of the Holy Roman Empire", as is described on the article page. There are hundreds of those however, considering that it is a courtesy title. - HyperGaruda (talk) 21:09, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The House of Salis-Soglio is separate from the Counts De Salis-Soglio. The Counts de Salis is treated like UK peerage, as it had an unusual Royal Licence for use in the UK. It is not a courtesy title. The nine counts de Salis-Soglio are part of the Salis-Soglio, but are a small a definite separate entity.Rodolph (talk) 22:00, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. HyperGaruda (talk) 08:10, 22 October 2015 (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.