Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barone Francesco Gauci

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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 - The delete side has shown there are reasonably big issues with

WP:NOR. -Djsasso (talk) 22:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Barone Francesco Gauci

Barone Francesco Gauci (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Turgid mess about a non-notable Maltese granted an honorific title of nobility for life. Strangely enough, the article has zero biographical information about Gauci (and sources describing more seem near to nonexistent); it is entirely about the granting of the title, a large section dating a hundred years later describing the order of precedence such titles should be accorded, and a great deal of

WP:SYN.  Ravenswing  19:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

*NB: And, for those with more energy today than me, the creator has thrown up a bunch of these articles concerning obscure Maltese noble titles; see Category:Maltese_nobility  Ravenswing  19:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. What is it about WP that attracts self-appointed geneologists with their incoherent ideas about "nobility"?

andy (talk) 23:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment "Self-appointed????" Have you bothered to check my web site called www.maltagenealogy.com?? I guess you haven't. I have been around for 20 years, ten of those on the net. I am well known to much of the world renown researchers in Europe. Further Comment: The sources which the administrator is saying are "unreliable" include the record of each grant found at the National Library of Malta, the findings of a Royal Commission and published by the House of Lords, other official correspondences presented to the House of Lords, as well as the official records found in a number of previously reigning houses and the records of one still reigning house (Spain). There is no reason to delete. - If however the real objection is only that some of the text is in Italian, Latin, French, Spanish or Maltese, then the relative translations (or synopsis) will be introduced over the next period. User talk:Tancarville 1708;, 25 May 2008 (EST)
  • Save Have you actually checked those references???????? Don't make any judgement till you have seen the works. This has been references in the highest sense. Tancarville
  • Comment - most of this editor's articles, including this one, are clones of each other with only the title changed. If you've read one of them you've read all of them. At the very least they should all be merged back into Maltese nobility. andy (talk) 08:05, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The verifiable references are available in the texts, so either (1) they probably don't understand the concept of "untitled nobility" or (2) maybe they're simply annoyed with too much latin and italian text.

Why don't you just ask them if it's ok if the article links to the italian and dutch equivalents so that they get a better idea of "patrician" etc? All the titles are "notable", because they testify the historic culture of the Maltese people. If ok, the articles will be improved. Further more, I am sadden that the above people have not bothered to see the importance of a small country and it history. I do agree that maybe in this case, the name should change to Barone Gauci rather Barone Francesco Gauci due to the limitation of a biograpghy. Tancarville, 18.04; 24 May 2008. 1. It was Wikipedia who asked Tancarvile to improve the articles. Tancarville has started to do this. The emphasis is to highlight the historical relevance and issues concerning each title.

2. All recent updates contain a precise reference to the grants. Checking each and every reference for this arcane subject, in no less than five languages, is no easy task. Postitive criticism from a Wikipedia administrator is appreciated but vindictive undermining is not. There is always room for improvement.

3. Each title has its own history. In regard to those which were created by the Grand Masters who ruled Malta, the "remainders" vary in their meaning and effect. For this reason it was thought best to quote verbatim the respective remainders, and this in Latin i.e. the original text.

4. The fact that titles are no longer recognized at law in Malta, does NOT mean that they have been abolished.

5. In regard to the foreign titles of nobility which were recognized by the Grand Masters, these are by far even more complex, not only because of the 1739 ad 1795 legislation, but also because the most of the original fons honorum have long gone (with the exception of the King of Spain).

6. It is a useless exercise to merge all titles into one group. At best, one can identify different classifications. (For example, the 1878 Royal Commission classified Rohan's creations into 3 groups). - But in fairness's sake, this is an exercise which could only be done once all the relative information is up and runnning.

7. If anybody has issues with the fact that by 1800 Malta had an advanced form of Nobility, that is his/her problem. - Facts are facts.

8. Tancarville has also made available the FULL texts in *.pdf format of the 1878 Royal Commission and official correspondence.

9. Whilst the 1878 Commission's findings are regarded as authoritative, some aspects required revisiting not only because of some apparent errors and contradictions found in the Report itself, but also because of subsequent developments.

10. Moreover, at the end of each title's description, there is a list of direct and indirect proofs of each title's legitimacy and authoritative documentation, emphasising the Primary source and moving downards in terms of (relative) importance.

11. It is definitely not true that the only difference between one title and the other is "a change in the date an heading". Some may be very similar, but others are radically different.

12. Old general legislation (i.e. pre-1800) is quoted in full for the convenience of the reader. If anybody ventures a argument or claim in respect of any one of the titles, he/she might as well be reminded of the general pitfalls. This "problem", which is common to all updated entries, can be solved by the simple expedient of setting up a separate page.

13. If Wikipedia's administrators want to get some sort of warped pleasure out of creating unnecessary polemics, simply because they are jealous of the Maltese nation's historic identity, let them please delete the whole lot.User talk:Tancarville 1:08;, 26 May 2008 (EST)

  • Save. The Barone Francesco Gauci is a historical figure in Malta as he served as the "Capitano della Verga of Malta" towards the period of the French and the English. It is important that this profile stays intact with further improvements. I believe the person who put this profile into deletion didnt give any chance for it to be evolved. These sorts of works take time to be produced and to have it "Wikified" standard. Highly recommand that instead of putting pages into deletion in such a hurry, think before you act. I firmly believe that
    few or no other edits
    outside this topic.
  • Comment: Alright ... here we go. First off, almost all the non-self-published sources Tancarville cites are unavailable for review to the vast majority of Wikipedia editors, which debars them from qualifying as
    WP:V
    holds the following: "Where editors use non-English sources, they should ensure that readers can verify for themselves the content of the original material and the reliability of its author/publisher ... Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations made by Wikipedia editors."
Secondly, while Tancarville holds himself out as a renowned geneaologist on his own and a number of websites, no reliable sources say so. A G-search for "Charles Said-Vassallo" turns up only 83 unique hits, all of them various webpages. There are zero hits on Google Scholar for him, something of an ominous sign.
WP:V
further holds:

"Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so." (emphasis in the original)

So far, and in violation of
WP:V, we are taking Tancarville's unsupported word for the existence of the sources he claims and for the accuracy of the information he gives on his website ... and startlingly, we have been doing so for years now. It's also an ominous sign how readily he accuses anyone questioning his sources or seeking to apply Wikipedia policies and guidelines to his articles of being "vindictive" or having some animus towards Malta, and I'd appreciate some answers that don't boil down to "How dare you?"  Ravenswing  14:13, 26 May 2008 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Barone_Francesco_Gauci&oldid=1068826194"