Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Count de Salis-Seewis

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. MBisanz ^talk 16:15, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Count de Salis-Seewis

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

I haven't found much good for this aside from these links and there's not much withbaside from Johann Gaudenz von Salis-Seewis's article. This has stayed the same and was tagged as having original research. Count de Salis-Soglio was also tagged but that one seems better and may not actually need to be deleted. Pinging tagger ZH8000 and author Rodolph. SwisterTwister talk 15:50, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 15:51, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 15:51, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 15:51, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 15:51, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

this is a good article? Why would you want to delete it? Please don't.Rodolph (talk) 18:57, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The citation style is extremely vague. No page numbers or ISBN are cited nor even article names. This makes it very hard to verify the sources or to determine the extent of coverage. I have removed the "Hoax" tag for want of any evidence supporting that claim. My gut says the article subject may be notable enough to pass GNG. Aristocratic families are frequently kept in AfD discussions. But this one needs serious work and does not at present demonstrate an unimpeachable case for notability given its poor referencing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:07, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The contributor who started the article is I think is working from what I understood based on past experience,were original manuscripts or rarer works held in a private collection, which given the age of the sources would explain the absence of ISBN's for the sources quoted. It may not be up to the quality of Burke's (which I will note is a source that could be used) but I would be wary about deletion purely on the citation style. Whilst Wikipedia would obviously prefer recent sources, for subject like this, the verifiable sources ARE going to be "older works in obscure collections". Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:09, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is a good point and I note that the article's creator has been diligently working on the article. At the moment I am leaning towards a Keep !vote. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:23, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Johann Gaudenz von Salis-Seewis, who seems to be the only notable person in the whole article. The rest seems to be about NN descendants. The title seems to be a French one for a Swiss soldier in French pay for a short period before the French Revolution. We do not even seem to have an article on the person for whom the Austrian title was re-created in 1915, presumably being abolished with the end of the Austrian Empire. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:21, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 18:26, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 22:52, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some citations to English-language books published by university presses. 86.24.88.241 (talk) 08:20, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Inclined to keep it, although it needs a LOT of work. I am somewhat confused about the use of Comte and Graf, which the article page suggests to be different even though they mean exactly the same: count. The Britannica page on poet Johan Gaudenz von Salis-Seewis only attributes the title Freiherr to him, as does the German wiki-page and the en-wiki version before Rodolph started editing. I assume that he mis-translated Freiherr as Comte/Count, while it should be Baron (not exactly, but it's the general equivalent). This might also explain the remarkable mention of two creation dates: one for Freiherr, the other for Graf. If that is true, Apparently we're dealing with a number of separate comital titles bestowed upon the family "de/von Salis-Seewis" rather than with "the Count of Salis-Seewis"; in other words, they're non-landed nobility. Hence, the page might be better moved to something like "House of Salis-Seewis", or simply "Salis-Seewis". - HyperGaruda (talk) 17:23, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. on the basis of the explanation just above. The possible merge/move should be decided later. DGG ( talk ) 22:08, 20 October 2015 (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.