Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Filotti family

:{{la|Filotti family}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|Filotti family}})

Although there are a small number of individuals in this family tree with articles, there is nothing to indicate that the family as a whole is notable. This article seems to be contrary to WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:NOTDIR #2 (Genealogical entries). The article is inadequately referenced. I'm sure there is a place for family history on the internet, but Wikipedia does not appear to be the appropriate vehicle here. RichardOSmith (talk) 18:47, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

• Delete - I don't see any evidence that the family is any more notable than any other minor landowning one. Sure, there are a few notable Filottis, but the family itself hardly seems to merit an article. The references don't do much to help, either. The Alexandru Gabriel Filotti [http://ro.wikisource.org/wiki/Frontierele_românilor work], for instance, appears more of a self-published family history than a serious, peer-reviewed, scholarly effort. - Biruitorul ^Talk 22:33, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

• Keep There is no reason to delete the article about a family who includes many personalities who have contributed to romanian culture: Politicians, actors, artists, writers, diplomats etc. If you look at articles about Romanian families, why are other articles more justified, for instance the Rebreanu family who includes a single member who was a great romanian writer, but no other personalities. Why is the Ovitz family presenting a family of circus dwarfs more important? Why are trees for the Roosevelt family or the Chotek family more important? Are Wikipedia family trees just reserved for royalty or aristocracy?
  I would also protest against the consistent attacks which User:Biruitorul has against articles I have written and which he repeatedly proposes for deletion. There may be a difference of oppinion between us. However, the matter should be settled in an arbitration and not as a repeated personal attack. I really find it extremely strange that after several other attacks by Biruitorul, suddenly a completely new user User:RichardOSmith comes out of the blue, and identifies this article as an article which should be deleted and immediately afterwards, Biruitorul finds this proposal and supports it. Afil (talk) 03:06, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
• A few points. First, the Ovitz family is notable because it is covered in [http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Ovitz+family%22&btnG=Search+Books&tbm=bks&tbo=1 reliable sources]; that's not really the case with the Filotti family. Second, I personally object to all family trees on Wikipedia (they're generally superfluous), but needless to say, they're more justifiable for royalty, where descent is such an important factor. Third, I've redirected Rebreanu to the author; you're quite right about that one. Fourth, the truly notable Romanian families are the :Category:Romanian boyar families, again because of their independent coverage. Fifth, I don't dispute that some Filottis are notable, which is why we have the Filotti page for them.
  As for my own role: no, I am not issuing "personal attacks", I am simply seeking, with the consent of the community, to delete a few articles on non-notable figures in the Filotti family. I have no idea who User:RichardOSmith is; I found this nomination from his vote here. But if you have doubts, feel free to ask for an investigation. - Biruitorul ^Talk 05:14, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
• The keep rationale advanced seem to entirely fall foul of WP:NOHARM and WP:WAX. I see no evidence of personal attacks from Biruitorul and I note the irony in making that accusation and then making a thinly-veiled accusation of sockpuppetry. I have addressed that accusation on the discussion page. To elaborate on the referencing concerns: I have researched family history myself and I know very well that it's not fool-proof. Information has come to light which has shown my own research to have been in error, and I have been able to correct errors in the trees of fellow researchers. In other words, a poorly referenced tree such as this does not meet the verifiability standards required for an encyclopedic article. There are other sites, such as Ancestry.com, which would welcome your work. Whilst we are checking contributors credentials, I also note that Afil could be a shortened A Filotti. If you have a WP:COI you are strongly encouraged to declare it, and it would be worth asking whether you have the right forum for your family research. RichardOSmith (talk) 18:33, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

:::All this does not answer the question why this tree is singled out for deletion. It is not based on my personal research, the information being taken from published works. My contribution is the construction of the tree using the information collected from the indicated references. Why would this constitue a conflict of interest even if Afil is a shortened for A. Filotti. There are no personal contributions to the tree and no personsal comments. Therefore I do not understand the question if this is the forum for my family research, as the article does not contain any personal research. Afil (talk) 19:37, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

::::Afil, in all fairness, nothing will answer your question about why this tree is "singled out" for deletion. One can quote the relevant wikipedia notability standards (which you seem not to have ever read), can point out the many precedents, can debunk your false analogies... it's still of no importance to you. You simply don't register that your questions have been answered, and you're never persuaded by any argument, but simply start over. But that's okay, Afil, because AfDs aren't really about persuading the creator(s) of the articles submitted, they're about pertinent arguments and consensus. Dahn (talk) 14:34, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
• Redirect to Filotti - No indication that the family is notable as a family per Wikipedia general notability criteria at WP:N. Article seems to be sourced to non-WP:RS family history websites. If reliable sources can be found for verifiability and to substantiate notability, an abbreviated version of the article (without the elaborate family-tree graphics, and omitting most nonnotable members) would be worth keeping. The disambiguation page for the family name is good destination for redirecting the article. --Orlady (talk) 17:10, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

The article is based on printed works published by the publishing house of a History Museum in Romania, who also carries out research on historic subjects. They are not family history websites.

• Delete - No assertion or indication that this is a notable family. Some, perhaps all, of the names with articles are problematic as well. Tarc (talk) 19:40, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

:::What indication do you want that the family is notable? It is incorrect to say that perhaps all articles of names are problematic - most are not. Even Biruitorul acknowledges that there are notable members of the family. However besides the notable members of the family, the article quotes two published references which present the entire family - do you have any reason to ignore them? What is disturbing is that if there are no references, the article is tagged for lack of verifiability. If there are, though they are printed studies, they are presented as unreliable. When other articles with similar trees are quoted, the similarity is ignored. This is hardly a fair and proper review of the case. Afil (talk) 00:58, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

• Delete. Splendid genealogical original research but notability is not demonstrated. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:18, 1 March 2011 (UTC).
• Delete Yes, we know, otherstuffexists, but this one simply cannot be measured against the basic GNG rule, let alone more specific requirements. The article is a pile of WP:OR, of dubious reliability, no encyclopedic interest and much clan promotion. Dahn (talk) 11:49, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
• Comment - also nominated the related Taşcă family. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment What I am requesting is a discussion on the notability criteria for families. Biruitorul considers that only boyar family trees should be presented, i.e. that Wikipedia accepts only trees for aristocracy and not for other families. I am not sure there is a consensus. Actually the discussion raises three different questions: if the family is notable, if trees are at all acceptable to wikipedia and if the article is properly referenced.

First a consensus should be reached on if and what kind of trees are acceptable to wikipedia - personally I am against the distinction between aristocratic and non-aristocratic families, after all we live in a democracy, whether Biruitorul likes it or not. If no trees or only trees for royalty are acceptable, there is nothing else to discuss. Second, assuming trees are acceptable, it should be decided what criteria we have for the notability of a family. It could be if a certain number of members are notable, there could be other criteria. A consensus should be reached if in these cases only the links between notable persons should be presented, or trees which are as complete as possible. At the end, after reaching a conclusion on these issues, in case a certain tree meets the requirements, we can discuss if that particular tree is properly referenced. Some of these issues have been raised by Orlady, who suggests among other things, that a reduced version of the tree could be kept. But how does Tarc know the family is notable or not if we have not yet a consensus on what a notable family is? The family tree has been published by the most reputable living Romanian genealogist, professor at the University of Bucharest. What is the difference between the view of a University professor who spends time researching the tree of a family and the view of Tarc who considers it not worth while? Can this become a systematic discussion of the issues and not a succession of sweeping statements? Afil (talk) 07:23, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

: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.