Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clignett

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. Max Semenik (talk) 09:29, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clignett

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

Dear Admin, How is this important for a separate article to be created? Thanks AKS (talk) 10:31, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why should it be deleted? There are many other familynames pages on wiki. What ever you don't feel is important, could be important to other people. Like this one for example [[1]] --Clignett73 (talk) 11:03, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Clignett73; thats the reason I tagged it AfD with a question and did not tag it for "speedy deletion". Should the article survive, I strongly recommend that you articulate the article well as it is very difficult to understand anything from it now (sorry for being curt). Cheers AKS (talk) 11:30, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Arunsingh16, This article was not created by me, but by a family member and it's still under construction. There is more info that needs to be added, so please can you wait with your proposal untill it's finished? Regards --Clignett73 (talk) 11:36, 6 January 2012 (UTC) Just an other example, this article may be more related to you http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singh --Clignett73 (talk) 12:07, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Clignett73; I am not an administrator and am a normal user just like you (with more experience on Wikipedia). It is not my personal opinion to delete anything and I am just trying to follow WP guidelines and flag articles to Admins for review. If they find an article suitable then they will revert my tag and leave the article intact. Thanks for your efforts. Cheers AKS (talk) 14:34, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems a clear case of WP:NOTDIR, which specifies this kind of genealogical entry as the kind of thing to avoid. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 14:27, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Tigerboy1966 Quote:REMEMBER:Everything on Wikipedia is a big deal to somebody. The Clignett article is still in process and not finished yet. Personally, i don't think it's a clear case of WP:NOTDIR. So what is this article [[2]] all about then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clignett73 (talk • contribs) 15:24, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Well Clignett, at least you checked my user page, so I wish you good luck, but it will be a tough job to save this.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 18:04, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as an A3: no substantive content, just a sentence and a bunch of links (most of those of no value). --Orange Mike | Talk 17:52, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have stripped the geneology, and it's possible that this could become like any other surname article - however, I've only found a couple of possible articles that mention the last name Clignett. Some explanation of the full notability of the article/name would help ... that is the type of work the originator of the article could really help with (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:01, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't understand all the hassle around the Clignett article. It was not finished, when I wanted to delete info I added it was considered 'vandalism' and I got warned (???)--Clignett73 (talk) 18:10, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Most surname pages are just disambiguations, and there are currently no articles of people with that surname, let alone 2 that would satisfy this. The "references" are unnecessary. --Ritchie333 (talk) 18:22, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My two cents Clignett73 when so many experienced people (not talking about myself) with several thousand edits each are saying the same thing, then there has to be a valid reason. Please understand that there are clear guidelines for all that goes into Wikipedia and it has to be respected at all times. About other articles on Last names (you took my example) - last name either has to be very widely used OR very important that it warrants a separate article. There would be “several hundred million” people with my last name in almost all possible countries in the world. Moreover my last name also represents different religious and ethnic groups from different demography; please do not compare different but similar subjects. We appreciate emotions & its importance but then articles cannot be sentiment driven. If that is the case then I would love to create an article about each of my family member as I personally feel that they are BIG to me. Please stop the discussion and listen what the administrators have to say. Please review Wikipedia guidelines before creating next articles. And don’t worry; articles created by most of us gets deleted once in a while (several articles written by me have been deleted). Lastly, Wikipedia is not test page; please save (create) articles only once acceptable level of information has been put there. Cheers AKS (talk) 18:32, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please with all respect, Arunsingh16. I am new to Wiki and I sure do make mistakes. I didn't know I couln't just delete something I added to the article. There are many wiki articles of families which includes their geneology. I don't know one person who has the Singh lastname. (And I sure know a lot of people on several continents.) To me Singh doesn't mean a thing, don't really care what else it means in different languages. You can also have respect for someone and let them finish their article first. Salut --Clignett73 (talk) 19:28, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Dear Clignett73, what you need to understand before editing, creating or reading any articles on Wikipedia is that one's personal opinion does not matter at all - sorry once again but what you think or feel is of no relevance here. Please adhere to the guidelines. For your better understanding, I will post some guidelines on your Talkpage (if I have not done so already). Trust this finally explains & happy editing. Cheers AKS (talk) 19:38, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - per WP:NOTDIR ukexpat (talk) 19:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Moreover, a cursory search shows that Clignet (single "t") is by far the more common spelling, and Clignett (double "t") is the variant spelling. --67.71.254.106 (talk) 14:18, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterday, Orangemike deleted much of the article content especially the part of te coat of arms including picture, which he now is proposing me to re-introduce. There is more to this family name and no, Cligne'tt' is definitely not the variant spelling. The 2nd 't' was officially added in the 18th century By a person born Clignet. Copied posts Orangemike & Clignett73:

:::"Removal External links

Hi there, I am editing the Clignett article, and was removing most of the links, can't you just give a person a chance to change it them selves? But you did remove some links that where allowed to use! You need to read this: Official links

Shortcut:

WP:ELOFFICIAL

An official link is a link to a website or other Internet service that meets both of the following: 1.The linked content is controlled by the subject (organization or individual person) of the Wikipedia article. 2.The linked content primarily covers the area for which the subject of the article is notable.

Official links (if any) are provided to give the reader the opportunity to see what the subject says about itself. These links are exempt from the links normally to be avoided, but they are not exempt from the restrictions on linking. For example, although links to websites that require readers to register or pay to view content are normally not acceptable in the External links section, such a link may be included when it is an official website for the subject.

Official links are still subject to standard formatting requirements, such as rich media labeling and not placing links in the text of the article. When an official website is used as a source to verify a self-published statement in the article text, it should be formatted like any other reference used in the article.[5] Official websites may be included in some infoboxes, and by convention are listed first in the External links section. Use of the template [http:// Official website] is optional.

No official link exists for many articles. "Fansites", including everything from websites run by fans of a musician to a charitable organization supporting patients with a disease, even if they are endorsed or authorized by the subject, are not considered official websites because the subject of the article is unable to control the information being presented. Links to websites that are not considered official websites may still be justifiable under other sections of this guideline, e.g., Links to consider #4.

I'm fully aware of that passage. None of the removed links was to an "official link", since this family/lineage does not have such a thing as an "official link" or "official website". --Orange Mike | Talk 19:16, 9 January 2012 (UTC) Well, some notable people who were listed do have their own official wegsite and you did remove those, sir. The Clignett article is not done yet. I'm in the progress to make an article on some of the notable people who were on the list, and why did you have to remove the part of the coat of arms. The other admins did not remove that, it is suitable for the article. That's is part of the familyname. There was also a ref you deleted that was considered valid. --Clignett73 (talk) 16:51, 10 January 2012 (UTC) 1. The "official site" exemption is for an official site of the subject matter, which is a name and a family. There is no official site for a name or a family. 2. If and when there are articles about these people, they can be added to the article (if it survives the current AfD discussion). 3. The coat of arms did not have any kind of reliable source. 4. If there is a reference that you feel qualifies as both reliable and relevant to the article, then re-introduce that specific individual source; don't dump in links to every Google Books result for every book in their database that mentions somebody named Clignett. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

First of all, i didn't start this article. I didn't put all the external links in there, but the person who started this article. At the time you apparently deleted the whole section, i was looking at the links that could be of any use.

1. But for example, Robine Clignett 2, who was listed under notable people has her own website, you did delete that. There also is an article on wiki with her name listed Windward Passages under personnel, which you deleted. 2. Well, you didn't even give it a chance to be sorted. 3. In the Netherlands, EVERYTHING pictures, data, etc. (of deceased familymembers) even the coat of arms. That is stored/ archived at Genealogy Centers, museums, any data base I am free to use, because it concerns my familyname, but i do have to publish the source which i have . (And i even have that in writing) The picture of the coat of arms didn't need any other source than myself, because it didn't come out of a book. I asked the employee of the Genealogy Center (CBG) in The Hague yesterday if i need to add a source to that picture and she said no, because i took it myself of the original which has been in my family for a decades. 4. I will, but i have a 2 year old that also needs my attention. Now, it will only take longer to finish the article, because you took most of the usable stuff out, and i have to re-introduce it again. Please, give me time to re-do what i had planned to add in the first place and then judge what ever isn't suitable. Thank you --Clignett73 (talk) 18:38, 10 January 2012 (UTC)"--Clignett73 (talk) 19:50, 10 January 2012 (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.