Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Riedesel

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:43, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Riedesel

Vanity, un-notable surname written by an author of the same name. I've left a friendly message on their talk page. -- UkPaolo 21:25, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, how do you know the name is un-notable as I had no chance to complete it? Yours truly, the author-to-be, would not appear in it. Paul Riedesel, Ph.D.

I accept your point. I see that you have just added further info to the article, and it is clear there are historical connections, which perhaps do merit a Wikipedia entry. Still not entirely convinced about creating an article on your own surname, though, however notable, and Wikipedia is not a genealogy site for you to post family history, however detailed or interesting. It's nothing personal - if you view the page history you'll note I even wikified the original version of the article for you! Personally, I think it would be better suited to your own user page, but we'll see other Wikipedians valued comments and how the vote works out... UkPaolo 22:05, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, a notable German noble family. Please allow articles more than ten minutes to grow after they were cretated, especially when authored by a new user. Zocky 22:20, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I allowed time for the article to grow - I watched the article and commented when further info was added to the page. However, I maintain that the information is promotion of the user's surname (and their website, linked at the end of the article). Yes its accurate, detailed, and maybe even interesting, but I'm not sure it is what Wikipedia should be about. It sets a huge precedent for people with numerous surnames to start generating articles - plenty of people know their family history these days. Are we now saying that providing there was nobility somewhere in the past, such genealogy articles are wanted? UkPaolo 07:13, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I share the last name to be sure, but have no personal connection with any of the noble Riedesels until 1400 or earlier. And yes my web site is focused on genealogy, but this article includes next to no genealogical information.--Paul Riedesel 12:19, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Weak keep, seems notable and encyclopedic. Tufflaw 22:33, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, precedent and discussion of names calls for articles on names to be disambiguation pages, not etymologies on the meanings and histories of names. RickK 22:52, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

I see numerous entries in the Category:German nobility that are not dissimilar. --Paul Riedesel 23:14, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. I don't see this as an etymology on the meaning and history of the name (I don't necessarily agree that should be excluded in any event). Its an article on a family that at this point appears to merit an article. DS1953 00:06, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• www.riedesel.org claims that the Riedesels ruled a state within the Holy Roman Empire until Napoeonic times. If that information is accurate, it is definite keep.
  • Forgot to sign this vote. Martg76 22:24, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I see that the German Wikipedia de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riedesel includes a similar article on this family.--Paul Riedesel 17:21, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.