Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bevilacqua Dynasty

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. delete all. May be temporarily undeleted to allow transfer elsewhere, or content e-mailed to creator on request. Scott Mac 22:02, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bevilacqua Dynasty

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

I am also nominating the following related pages (listing the userspace pages as they're basically the same content):

These articles appear to be made out of thisn air, despite the amount of work put into them. See examples such as the author's repeated claims that a "Morando Bevilaqua" founded the city of Trento by building a castle and a church in the first century BC, and that this castle is current the Buonconsiglio Castle, and goes on with the same tone all over. Claiming at times that they're counts, but referring to their domain as "principality", and simply inserting them inside major events without any source I was able to find online supporting this. But really, the idea of them as founders of Trento by building a castle in the first century before Christ pretty much sums up the credibility of these articles. I've consulted a history of the Bevilaqua family that was available online, [1] and it mentions a completely different history for it, with no mention of any of the events these articles make. To me, it's really a case of somebody working a lot to insert his own family (the author of these article's Victor Bevilaqua) in history, with no basis to do so. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 17:08, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have a very strong recollection of having dealt with these articles before, but I can't find anything to back that up. They feel very, very wrong, their content is (as mentioned above) unverifiable, and I recommend that they be deleted. DS (talk) 17:40, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've come across these before too and support the above proposal to delete. I fully acknowledge that this may all be esoteric, yet accurate information, but unless the author comes forward in the near future with well-documented
talk) 17:48, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Some of this may be true, but there seem to be many exaggerations or vaguely misleading statements. It is also poorly written and almost impossible to figure out in parts. Out! (I'm not sure you can get rid of the user pages; unless the user is causing problems by adding inappropriate links to them, I think they are the user's business.) Brianyoumans (talk) 18:23, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah I don't really care about the user pages. They can be noindex'd if they are kept.
  talk) 19:17, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Delete due to questionable
original research. Edison (talk) 20:31, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Userfy and ask him to move it to Familypedia. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:39, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno - does Familypedia accept material that's known to be false? And tis sort of content does show up in search engines - at the very least, it gets mirrored. He can save it to his own hard drive and work on it there. He can even install a local copy of MediaWiki. DS (talk) 02:05, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the articles, list the userpages at MFD. Apparent hoax. Stifle (talk) 13:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Edward321 (talk) 00:47, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 'em all unless some verification can be found. --MelanieN (talk) 01:13, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment More care needs to be taken before declaring a hoax than has been taken here. If a stud racehorse (perhaps not a good analogy with respect to notability) sired a long line of racehorses that fairly consistently won races, it would be a hoax to claim that the racehorses flew around the world on gossamer wings meeting important figures from history, but claiming they won races would be a slam dunk. The "Bevilacqua Family" absolutely, without a doubt, exists. Check Google Books. They are covered extensively in multiple independent sources. While Reliable Sources exist, Notability is another matter. Other than a scandalous missionary that seduced Christian Chinese women in a wide area around the mission in Shandong in the 1730s (The spirit and the flesh in Shandong, 1650-1785 page 124 &125 David E. Mungello), and 20th C Bevilacquas that were terrorized by Fascists, the family seems to be notable for nothing more than owning mansions and sitting for portraits, unless there is some alternate spelling of Bevilacqua I do not know of, or some other such problem. Anarchangel (talk) 01:38, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think anyone is doubting that the Bevilacqua family exists. What we're all doubting are the claims made in the articles about the family's role in history, which no one has been able to find sources for. Real family, dubious statements of history.
  talk) 01:57, 25 February 2011 (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.