Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 June 10

Østby family (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|restore)

Without prior discussion, User:Liz deleted the article titled Østby family: a concise, well-sourced article on a notable subject as per Wikipedia criteria. Brox Sox (talk) 16:01, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Have you actually discussed the deletion with the deleting admin or has your interaction just been to slap a DRV notice on their talk page?
  Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:31, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I posted a question on the deleting admin's talkpage some days prior to my Deletion Review request, but the user ignored it. Brox Sox (talk) 16:38, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as apparently legitimate. No objection to undeletion to see exactly what content was lost, but
  Østby, Norway last year. Rolling back what happened, Bbb23 deleted Østby noble family as a G3 on April 11, and House of Rosensverd the same day as a G8. Later that same day, Liz deleted Østby family as a G8. So, the real question for DRV is... Was Østby noble family a legitimate G3 on April 11th? Jclemens (talk) 18:37, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  It should be fairly straightforward for an admin to take a look and see if the G3 was truly a G3, but I'm not sure that's the actual question - what concise, well-sourced article exactly does the nom think was deleted? SportingFlyer T·C 23:09, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I was kind of hoping one admin investigation would settle both questions. Jclemens (talk) 04:00, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for untangling the history of all of these mergers, Jclemens, which I was unaware of. I just deleted Østby family because the page was a broken redirect. I'll admit that I didn't look into the page's past history. Most of the time these broken redirects are pretty straight-forward deletions of pages that are deleted because the target page was deleted. I have no objection to restoring this page if there is a new, valid redirect target to point it to. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:20, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• This is... weird. The article the OP is talking about is now in the history of
  Østby (Norwegian village), e.g. [1]. The page was subsequently rewritten to be an article about a village [2] and then redirected. So I suggest the OP reverts this and moves the article back to the Østby family
  title.

The page

Østby (Norwegian village) through a cut-and-paste move. User:Norges Adelstand then added a long rant to the top of the page alleging, amongst other things, that "This article is pure harrasment and factually wrong. All the claims in this article are wrong" and that the claim that someone isn't considered noble is "just pure racism amd cultural appropriation". Norges Adelstand then tagged it for speedy deletion and it was deleted under G3, possibly because of the rant, but in any case the non-rant content can be seen here, and it doesn't look like harassment to me at all. Norges Adelstand has since been indeffed for disruptive editing. Hut 8.5 12:10, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

• Would it be possible to revert everything to the way it was on say April 10 without making any judgments about content? SportingFlyer T·C 15:13, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  No objection from me. Jclemens (talk) 21:32, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• No action: There's no need for administrator action. The "lost" House of Rosensverd content can be restored from page history of the current redirect (
  WP:AHIJACK; there was never a consensus that the "House of Rosensverd" content is unfit for inclusion in the encyclopedia.—Alalch E. 20:37, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I suggest that nothing be endorsed/overturned in this deletion review, because this is about untangling the consequences of disruptive editing.—Alalch E. 20:45, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Response to several/unspecified contributors above: Yes, the multi merging and moving of the article was a deliberate strategy of the person behind User:Norges Adelstand and other aliases. The user was given a temporary ban for his crude language and threats, then as User:89.8.149.65. His repeated blanking, merging, and moving of the House of Rosensverd/Østby family article, which eventually was deleted after (I think) he persued User:Vif12vf to delete it. On Vif12vf's talkpage, he wrote (translated into English): 'Hi Buddy, The article 'Østby noble family' is an article that has been subject to pure vandalism of the original article that a foreign asshole [i.e., me Brox Sox, who is not foreign but Norwegian] had changed the title on out of pure hatred and racism against Norwegians and in addition the person committed Cutural [sic] Appropriation of Norwegian history. Thus, I needed to act and have removed the text and nominated the article for Speedy Deletion nonsense. [...] Otherwise, I agree with most of your opinions. NATO can go to hell.' Rather the rule than an exception, User:Norges Adelstand's talkpage and discussion activities are sheer rants. Another example, on the discussion page of , another user (a respected heraldist and lawyer, for that sake) had a small comment to the article's contents—and was met with a very lengthy response which includes bold text and multiple question marks. Just look at it—this intimidating, unpleasant raging is User:Norges Adelstand's modus operandi as a Wikipedia contributor. Regarding the deletion of 'Østby family', User:Norges Adelstand was furious that I removed erroneous and for that sake unsourced information, including the alleged princely status of the Østby/'Rosensverd' family. In particular, in the said article, User:Norsk Adelstand quoted a letters patent of 1458, but I happen to have the book (Bartholdy 2007, ISBN 9788775000005) containing all the known letters patent issued from 1396 to 1546, and could thus clarify that in that quotation, User:Norges Adelstand had added his own text which claims that the Østby/'Rosensverd' family were styled as the King's thegns (the letters patents says 'tienner', servants, not thegns/thanes) and given the title of Prince with not only patrilineal but even unlimited cognatic succession (a provision that, if it were true, would have made tens of thousands of Norwegians Princes and Princesses between 1458 and 2023). It was simply too fantastic to be true, especially since the Østby family presumably became patrilineally extinct ('last known male member') in 1788; their cognatic descendants, to whom User:Norsk Adelstand very well might belong, don't possess any noble status according to the 1458 letters patents. The letters patent doesn't explicitly specify that noble status was limited to legitimate patrilineal descendants, but this was considered so obvious in those days that they wouldn't waste ink on stressing it. Anyway, when it was deleted, the article 'Østby family' was perfectly well-sourced. There was no legitimate reason for deleting it. It should ideally be undeleted, or otherwise restored, with the title 'Østby family'. Brox Sox (talk) 16:38, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I would like to add that names such as 'Rosensverd' (a name based on the family's coat of arms) are contemporary names invented by historians for the purpose of easier identification of noble families that, when they lived back in the middle ages, didn't have any official family name. And historians today generally prefer the formula 'name of main residence/farm' + ætta (clan, family), i.e., Østbyætta (Østby family), and when the family's farm is unknown or ambiguous, they use the formula 'ancestor's name' + ætt, e.g., Torbergætta (Torberg's clan) or Sigurd Aslaksons ætt (Sigurd Aslakson's clan). Brox Sox (talk) 16:48, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Brox Sox: Just to be clear, once we untangle all of the merges, the original page that needs to be restored is at the title Østby family or House of Rosensverd? Others may be clear on this, but I'm not, and it'd be great if we could be 100% certain with what needs to happen here. SportingFlyer T·C 17:19, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @SportingFlyer: I suggest 'Østby family', in line with the article Østby-ætta at Lokalhistoriewiki (run by the National Library of Norway) as well as third-party-published sources such as Christiansen 1996 (see below) and Langekiehl 2006 (see below, too) in Norsk Slektshistorisk Tidsskrift (Journal of Norwegian Genealogy). As for the competitor 'Rosensverd' or 'Rosensverd family', this was not a contemporary name when the Østby family lived, but has been constructed by historians and genealogists of the 20th century. Later, such names have become adopted by popular genealogy, used in self-published sources such as Geni.com. In the 21th century, historians don't recommend using 'canting arms' names such as Rosensverd ('Rose Sword', with reference to the roses and swords in their coat of arms) retroactively, instead preferring more objective markers of identification based on the name of a given family's ancestor (example: 'Dyre Sevaldssons ætt' below) or their farm/estate (example: 'Østby-ætten', 'Hove- og Østby-ættene' below).

  1.) Christiansen, Per Reidar Bjørnerud 1996. 'Dyre Sevaldssons ætt, og litt om Hove- og Østby-ættene'. Norsk Slektshistorisk Tidsskrift, 35: 387–435; 2.) Langekiehl, Atle Steinar 2006. 'Var Torbrand Eivindsson på Tofteberg i Borge Eivind Smedsson Frøshaugs sønn? Spor av Østby-ætten i bondearistokratiet'. Norsk slektshistorisk tidsskrift. Brox Sox (talk) 18:08, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, please note that User:Jay1279 moved the article to Østby (61.25391694871437, 12.52696060033196) in Trysil Municipality, Innlandet County—but the then-noble farm of Østby (59.200653845105535, 11.138025454779827) is located in Sarpsborg Municipality in Viken County, formerly Østfold County. North-east and south-east of Oslo, respectively. Brox Sox (talk) 21:24, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Question - I'm really confused on what article we are looking at. Can we have a temporarily restored version somewhere to evaluate - or perhaps someone can educate me a bit. Nfitz (talk) 20:06, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]