Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sant Cassia
 | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Sant_Cassia was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. 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 CONSENSUS NOT REACHED
The page should be deleted due to no one being an authority, the links outside the page, are genealogy which isnt allowed listed on VfD by User:81.152.114.146
- Note: This is the third time this page has been listed for deletion however previous discussions cannot be located at present. Could the nominator please sign their nomination. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 12:46, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Keep: for one thing, I cannot see anything particularly wrong wiht this article, and additionally, I oppose User:81.152.114.146's behavior regarding this article: he blanked it (was reverted), listed it as a copyvio (wrongly), tagged it as speedy (unnecessarily) and placed it here without stating a real reason for deletion (at least, none that i can understand). If there is a real reason for deletion, he'll have to do some major work to convince me of it -- Ferkelparade π 13:37, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- keep. agree with Ferkelparade. Posiduck 15:18, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Not a family tree. --Improv 18:11, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. There's a lot of Maltese nobility going up these days, in part due to Charles Said Vassallo the genealogist of the large Maltese nobility website who's been putting up some of his own stuff (User:Tancarville according to e-mail I've got from another member of that group). I've been coaching him on practice around here, i.e., fill in more info, etc. They'll work it all out. — Bill 20:03, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Tell them to do it faster, otherwise I am about to slap copyvio tags on all their pages here. (I started, but stopped after seeing your notice here) Mikkalai 21:28, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Also, all that stuff they are pumping into wikipedia says very few about their importance besides being nobles. So I changed my mind. If there will be no demonstrable notability, all are subject to VfD. I am trembling with fear waiting when all Chinese nobility and Indian brahmins start pumping their genealogy here. Mikkalai 21:37, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Delete, unless this family is notable by anything besides being made noble for, all what I can guess, scratching Queen's back. 23:30, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC) Mikkalai 21:20, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC) (glitch?)
- Keep. This seems to be a reasonable stub. Nominator's behavior is suspicious. — Gwalla | Talk 04:06, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Delete agree with Improv not a family tree gfms 09:11, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Keep there is more real encyclopedic stuff than research. —siroχo 08:45, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep Actually they wined, dined with Royalty in Malta up to the present time. This family are classified as an elite family with with also some sad aspects such as the last Count being murder. That murder is still unsolved to this day.Tancarville
- Deleteagree with gfms csr
Keep (repeated vote stricken out)View this for evidence of family importants. [[1]], Tancarville- Deletenot needed patent
- Deletenot a family tree, just a stub genius45
- Keep - the precendents on aristocracy are clear. Charles Matthews 22:32, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.