Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/House of Cusenza

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. Davewild (talk) 18:13, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

House of Cusenza[edit]

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

Citation of another user's (FactStraight) entry on the "talk" page of the article, which I fully endorse: "No sources verify Cusenza sovereignt. I suspect that this article and this family are a hoax. The new Wikipedia account, User:RiservaZingaroNet, has created and insists on retaining this article, without reliable sources, despite requests. The sources given are entirely to private, online websites and/or to a generic source about "surnames" that does not establish the specific history, significance or relationships of this alleged "House of Cusenza". Now we are being told that hundreds of years of history were deliberately destroyed so that we must take the "oral history" reported here as being truth. Unfortunately, that does not suffice in view of the challenges to this family's existence and notability that I am raising here. If there are no citations, this article cannnot be considered legitimate."--Kjalarr (talk) 06:55, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I'm looking at the lists & the first three I sampled all have meh references. The last family I looked at here Category:Da Carrara family. Is there further basis to suspect a hoax? Do you have a patrol or anything setup for nobles in Italy? -- IamM1rv (talk) 11:57, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my entry on the talk page 8 months ago, as cited above. Several attempts were made to add mirrors and unreliable sources, but despite requests no such cites have materialized. Even if produced, insufficient grounds exist for the notability of the content that remains or the alleged family of which it speaks. People complain about the proliferation of "royalty/nobility cruft". This article is an example of why. FactStraight (talk) 12:30, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:08, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:08, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:08, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- This article reads more like folklore than history. I looked hard to see if there was anything that could be rescued. It has a picture of a castle, which is alleged to be the family home. I wondered whether the article might be repurposed as relating to that building and its inhabitants, but there is no real contnet concerning it. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:04, 18 April 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.