Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Masreliez

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 keep. Sandstein 05:48, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Masreliez

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

The sources provided do not provide any indication that the Masreliez family have any significant notability in Sweden or France. Suggest deleting entirely, or possible merge into Curt Masreliez who appears to be the only notable member of this family. Salimfadhley (talk) 22:13, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Salimfadhley, am I to assume that you have read Swedish art historian Göran Alm's Swedish-language monograph on the Masreliez family (referred to in the article) and that this study of the subject has lead you to the conclusion that the family isn't notable? Because that is what your nomination is implying. (For the record, I have added two articles on members of the Masreliez family previously missing here: Adrien Masreliez and Jean Baptiste Masreliez. The Swedish dictionary of national biography has articles on these two, on Louis Masreliez, and a separate article on the family as a whole, which includes a few lines on 20th-century family member Curt Masreliez, among others. I will admit to never having heard of Curt until today, but a merge of anything to his article seems like a remarkably bad idea.) --Hegvald (talk) 06:41, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What's the ISBN of the monograph? I am unable to find the book. Note that whether the individuals are notable does not mean we should have an article on the surname. It's also not clear whether the article is about the family of artists of French origin and of a Swedish line of descent or about individuals with the surname. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:10, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How is this not clear? Once you have four related individuals, three verey closely related, who have articles an article on the family is justified as a form of disambiguation & to avoid confusion, and we have very many such articles. It is not necessary to demonstrate notability specifically for the family as a group, although in this case this can be done anyway. Johnbod (talk) 11:32, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We aren't discussing a disambiguation page of individuals. It is necessary to demonstrate notability specifically for the family as a group. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:18, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree with that; there are hundreds of pages on noble families and titles of nobility that are just lists of individuals. Johnbod (talk) 13:39, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If those articles go to AfD they will have to demonstrate notability as well. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:47, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The ISBN is already there and appears to be correct. I see no reason to have an article on the surname, but there is no reason not to have one on this particular family. Any unrelated Masreliezes can be left out. As far as I can tell no unrelated ones are in there at the moment. --Hegvald (talk) 15:30, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(I thought that I just want to clarify what this particular article is covering. It seems a bad idea to try and cover both in the same article. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:53, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I see this has been clarified: [1]. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:54, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, what's is covered in the runeberg.org source, I am unable to read swedish: [2], does it specifically say he is a member of the Masreliez family? IRWolfie- (talk) 14:12, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is a scan of a Swedish Who's Who (sv:Vem är det?) from 1969 and it is not the type of publication that would mention someone's distant ancestry. But as I mentioned above, the article in the Swedish dictionary of national biography (Svenskt biografiskt lexikon) mentions Curt as being a member of the family. --Hegvald (talk) 15:30, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "Who's who" source should probably be switched with the Svenskt biografiskt lexikon. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:05, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Hegvald (talk) 06:45, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - well Hegvald pretty much covers all aspects of why it should be kept.--BabbaQ (talk) 09:13, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Hegwald. Johnbod (talk) 13:05, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreeing without providing any reasoning does not have any weight. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:10, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think there are enough sources yet to demonstrate notability. It seems a swedish or french speaker is in the best position to locate the sources. I found one mention: [3] (only a one line mention though). IRWolfie- (talk) 16:05, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Are any of the source texts available in English? WP:NOENG is the relevant section of WP:V which deals with disputes concerning non-English sources. In this case the article does not have a single English-language source - it's very difficult to verify the notability of this subject. --Salimfadhley (talk) 16:39, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- All you have to do is ask someone who reads the language in question (Swedish in this case) to check relevant sources. WP:NOENG just gives a preference to English sources when available and of equal quality. As for the notability of the subject, it is not really in question and never was. --Hegvald (talk) 18:16, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A google snippet - about on the family name in books: "Encyclopedia of interior design: M-Z.: Volume 2,

books.google.co.ukJoanna Banham, Leanda Shrimpton - 1997 - 696 pages - Snippet view Masreliez was born in Paris into a prominent family of French sculptors and carvers. His father, Adrien Masreliez, arrived in Stockholm in 1748 to work at the Royal Palace, where he became the foremost carver of ornament." - In fact there are plenty of sources, like this, if you bother to look. Johnbod (talk) 20:58, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Banham book is the same source as I showed above (it gives a one line mention), if you bother to look. The other source you linked doesn't mention the family just an individual. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:14, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two individuals, if you bother to read it! Johnbod (talk) 11:20, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did notice, and it's irrelevant. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:09, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - plenty of sources, notable family. A while ago I was involved in an edit war with a banned user over a "C. Johan Masreliez" [4]. I do not know if this person is also mentioned in the sources as a member of this family. More knowledgeable editors should look into this. This person is also the reason that this topic was discussed on the fringe noticeboard a few times, initiated by the same banned user, who is evading his ban to delete the mention of this person. And it is again the same banned user who initiated yet another fringe noticeboard discussion, which led the proposer to believe this AFD is necessary. --POVbrigand (talk) 07:43, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is exactly that there is not plenty of sources. Aside: I am unsure why you inserted unsourced content about a living person in the first place [5] (which appears to have led to your edit war). IRWolfie- (talk) 13:12, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was undoing previous reverts by the banned user. In my book banned = banned and not "oh the banned user raises valid points on the talk page and his revert also makes sense, so I am going to contínue his work, because being banned means _he_ cannot do all the necessary work on WP, so somebody has to do it for him". This is not a personal attack. --POVbrigand (talk) 14:05, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, this all seems rather bizarre. We have a few (somewhat dubious) sources which mention this name but in no significant depth. We have a small number of notable individuals of this family, some of whom may have their own pages. The name itself is not notable, it's the family. I propose that we make a template for the family and just include this on the relevant pages. --Salimfadhley (talk) 10:06, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bizarre yourself! Several of the sources are not at all dubious, and some quite lengthy, and several individuals do have their own pages. Templates should be reserved for more significant cases; the notability threshold for a template should be MUCH MUCH higher than for an article. I would certainly support the deletion of any template created. Johnbod (talk) 11:03, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As the initiator of this Masreliez-article, I have been notified of and invited to comment on this AfD discussion. First on the issue: I have added Svenskt biografiskt lexikon (SBL) as a reliable source on the Swedish family line and on the members listed there, as it garantees that listed persons ”have done significant contributions within all areas of soceity and culture”, which should do for Wikipedia as well. For a short mentioning of a person in a family article I question the need of similar notability requirements as for a separate wp article on the person. Next on the long time edit war: The banned Vanished user (former SA and other alias) has started edit wars in many articles from several IP-socks. When my trying to draw attention to this fact, it cost me a warning for "outing" harassment, stating his user name, which turned out also to be his real name. This came to involve two other Swedish wp-users and lead to my block, which I have given up appealing to all-mighty administrators on. That's why I have to sign with my IP. / 89.160.124.74 (talk) 10:34, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The SBL appears to give sources about individuals and not the family. Note that the above editor is ban evading. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:40, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The IP above has been blocked as a ban evader. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:18, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Sorry for semi-protecting the article during this debate, but it looks like the usual vandal/sock is acting up again. IPs are welcome to comment here or at the article talkpage. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:02, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Salimfadhley had clearly already made up his mind before starting the nomination. He declares all sources "somewhat dubious" and now appears to be in the process of concocting some crazy conspiracy theory to explain why he is being opposed in the discussion. Ironically, Salimfadhley probably believes that he is fighting the good fight against fringe science (in this case personified by an obscure latter-day member of this family, an engineer with an eccentric cosmology of his own, if I've understood the issue correctly), but at this point, he has stepped firmly into the fringe himself. The importance of the Masreliez family in the 18th century is not something any mainstream scholar of Swedish art history would dispute, although they may give different relative weight to them compared to a few of their contemporaries. But the only way to show this is to reference publications such as the book by Göran Alm, a well-known expert on 18th century Swedish architecture and interiors, who writes: "For more than half a century, the French artist family Masreliez dominated the creation of Swedish interiors. A comparable family dominance can only be found in the three generations [of the] Tessin [family]", Franskt blev svenskt, p. 185, translated from the Swedish). But since Salimfadhley, with no apparent background in the general area of Swedish art, history or culture, has already declared Alm's book "somewhat dubious", we are at a point where further exchange of views on this subject becomes meaningless. --Hegvald (talk) 11:17, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Basing your whole keep vote on an Ad hominem on the nominator is hardly persuasive. The sources on this topic are almost non-existent or fail to go into much detail (the above source has already been mentioned in this AfD). IRWolfie- (talk) 11:24, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is it acceptable to try to wage a campaign against a subject from a noticeboard that is subject-wise completely unrelated? Is it acceptable to claim that people with opposing (and in fact better-informed) views are representing a "fringe view" when one hasn't even informed oneself about the subject before making the nomination in the first place? (As an aside, I haven't actually voted "keep". I usually don't do so with articles that I find unsalvageable. The article is rubbish and I would be happy to see it go. But not if it means a precedent against a new article.) --Hegvald (talk) 15:16, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Summary We have a small handful of sources which have appeared during the course of the AfD. I think whether GNG has been met is not clear. I will summarize the current sources for the closing admin:

1 line: Shrimpton, editor Joanna Banham ; picture editor Leanda (1997). Encyclopedia of interior design. London: Fitzroy Dearborn. p. 791. ISBN 9781884964190.

1 Paragraph in the Dictionary of Swedish National Biography [6] trans: [7]

A 190 page book on the topic: Franskt blev svenskt: den franska könstnärsfamiljen Masreliez i Sverige under 1700-talet by a publisher called signum ISBN 9187896060, 9789187896064, author Göran Alm

a small mention at the bottom of the page here: [8]. I'm not sure how reliable this self-published website is.

I think the crux of the AfD is whether a single short book provides significant coverage or not. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:39, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it should be enough. Not that this is all there is, but it should be enough for Wikipedia. That this is not all there is would be clear to you from the bibliographies in the already-mentioned sources. --Hegvald (talk) 15:27, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the source doesn't directly discuss the family in detail it does not help towards notability. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:33, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It very clearly does! The great majority of "kept" notability AFDs have far less than this! Johnbod (talk) 15:28, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how a kept AfD could have less than significant coverage in one reliable source unless something other than WP:GNG was fufilled. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:35, 19 May 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.