Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mavroleon family

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. Only because there are no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Mavroleon family

Mavroleon family (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

Unsourced article about a family (some alive, some deceased--BLP prod declined earlier), nothing saying they're notable except that they once owned a lot of ships. —fetch·comms 00:39, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
• Comment: many of the members of said family appear marginally notable: extensive news obituary in the Telegraph (with news stories to boot about his strange death), a few perhaps non-trivial references in a Google Book search, I'm sure there are more. Might be better off having individual articles and linking them, but I say it's a notable family (or perhaps a family with a couple notable members). Buddy431 (talk) 03:30, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
• "Owning a lot of ships" seems like a pretty good qualification for being notable, just like extracting lots of oil, distilling lots of liquor or publishing a lot of books. The fact that there is a family business, ownership and management of which appears to be have been shared among members and handed over from one generation to the next, probably makes it better to begin by treating the family as a whole and then break out any members whose significance goes beyond that. That said, this article is next to incoherent and should probably have at least a good source or two. While the nominator's deletion argument remains invalid, it may perhaps be better to delete it and allow someone else to begin from scratch. --Hegvald (talk) 06:32, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the family owns a lot of ships, but how many is enough for notability without sources covering them in a whole? —fetch·comms 23:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying that the article should be deleted because it is currently completely unreferenced? I have no problem with that (which is more or less what I said above: delete this unreferenced rubbish and let someone else start from scratch). Or are you saying that you consider it unlikely that such sources (covering a family collectively worth a couple of billion pounds) exist at all? --Hegvald (talk) 05:50, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

• Keep: notable without a doubt. No difficulty in sourcing - I've added a few external links that were easy to find, to make (I hope) a proper stub of it, but there are likely to be a lot more to be added by someone more persistent. Two or three individuals may well merit their own articles as well, but this is an extremely prominent business family that's surely worth a collective article.HeartofaDog (talk) 02:01, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
• Keep. The article looks much better now. HeartofaDog, if you look at Google Books, there are more possibly relevant hits, but they're all "snippet view" or no preview (at least for me). I would be surprised if there weren't Greek and/or paper references in addition to what is easily found on the internet. --Hegvald (talk) 05:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

yes, there's bound to be more - I haven't attempted Greek-language sources, but they've got to be there. If I get time I'll see about Google books, but I imagine I'll have the same restrictions as you. HeartofaDog (talk) 23:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

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.