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 move to draft‎. Consensus was to let the article be improved in draftspace, rather than deleting it (non-admin closure) Seawolf35 (talk - email) 16:25, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Østby family[edit]

Østby family (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

There's nothing in this article that indicates notability and I cannot find any mentions whatsoever on this family at all using a WP:BEFORE search. I cannot even verify if this exists. FatalFit | ✉ | ✓  01:46, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. FatalFit | ✉ | ✓  01:46, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• What about the single reference used and the "literature"?—Alalch E. 01:58, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Almost every single one is completely unrelated, one literally being a danish-norwegian dictionary. In hindsight, I should've marked it for speedy deletion as the creator said that it doesn't exist on their talk page. FatalFit | ✉ | ✓  02:04, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  What about the single reference used? That reference being "Vigerust, Tore H. (1998). Adelsnytt: 52." As seen in Special:PermanentLink/1179123970 (can be seen in the References section). —Alalch E. 03:32, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:03, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:47, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. 46.15.68.181 (talk) 13:20, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• The page history is fairly preposterous. To be clear, an Østby family does probably not warrant an encyclopedic article. The article used to be about the Rosensverd noble family. Geschichte (talk) 10:42, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Geschichte: Yes, very. There was some discussion of this page's history in this Deletion review.

  The origins of this article trace to the Norwegian article Rosensverd.

  I think that this comment could be helpful:

  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).
  — User:Brox Sox

  There have been disruptive attempts to remove coverage of this supposed or real noble family from Wikipedia in the past (disruptive in the sense of doing the wrong things to accomplish the goal), but I don't know what they were motivated by. —Alalch E. 15:37, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Unfortunately, the article has been ravaged for one and a half year by a person presenting himself as Prince of Rosensverd, on Wikipedia known by the username Norges Adelstand and several IP addresses, including User:46.15.68.181 above. His disruptive behaviour, including his foul and yelling messages to other Wikimedia contributors, led to his User:89.8.149.65 being blocked for three months in June 2022.

To retell it concisely: First, the 'Prince' added a lot of fantastic (but erroneous or unsourced) claims about being royal princes as of 2023; the Wikipedia article even contained his self-assumed personal coat of arms in his 'capacity' as 'Prince GABRIEL of ROSENSVERD of The North Sea Empire' (see image). Also, for those who are unfamiliar with it, the said coat of arms is an outright copy of the coat of arms of Norway.

Then, when I removed all these claims in addition to changing the title from Rosensverd (a family name not used by the family when they were alive but constructed and attributed by 20th-century genealogists), the 'Prince's' response was to remove all mentionings of the name, arms, and members of the Rosensverd family—because he didn't want the name Rosensverd, which is his legal last name by deed poll, to be presented in a way that did not fit his personal agenda (so this is, by the way, an obvious COI case).

As far as I can tell, the Østby (Rosensverd) family has been extinct in the male line since the 18th century. It is possible that the person above is a cognatic descendant, that is, through female ancestors, but that does not make him noble—and much less a prince, a title never granted to the Østby family or any other noble families in Norway. His agenda is, nonetheless, to use Wikipedia as a means of promoting the idea that he is a prince.

My attempts to provide the article with brief but well-sourced information from my extensive library on the nobility in Denmark and Norway have stranded as I experienced and/or had reason to anticipate that the 'Prince' very soon would remove the newly added contents altogether or even, as he did in one case, illegitimately have the article speedy deleted, a case where I had to spend much time on having the article restored.

Thus, the situation is that the 'Prince,' without anyone stopping him, consistently has removed relevant information from reliable third-party sources from the article, with the result that the Østby (Rosensverd) family seems non-notable. When they, in fact, are a major medieval noble family.

I could fix the article in a couple of hours. But I hesitate to do so, because I know that the article will continue to be vandalised by the COI Prince. Nevertheless, my suggetion is that I improve the article tonight in order to establish the family's notability per the Wikipedia guidelines, hence 'Keep.' Brox Sox (talk) 17:21, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: I see that I'll need a little bit more time to improve the article substantially. Thus, I recommend that the current article be transferred to my user space as a draft, or a similar solution. I do not recommend 'Delete,' because the revision history should be preserved, considering that the upcoming article most likely will pass the WP:AFCR review. Brox Sox (talk) 20:27, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I thought that this article had been to AFD before but it was tagged for speedy deletion and then there was a deletion review. For more information about the tangled history of this article as it got moved around the project, see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 June 10.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:32, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above and WP:TNT. Geschichte (talk) 09:26, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Very little to go by in terms of sources. While lots of literature is listed, almost none of it is tied to the content in the article. At present, the article does not pass verifiability requirements. Sjakkalle (Check!) 21:13, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The article in its original version should never have been approved in the first place, cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%C3%98stby_family&direction=next&oldid=1091471830, citation: 'As direct descendants of King Haakon V the members of the House of Rosensverd are by definition princes and princesses of Norway and remain claimants to the Norwegian Throne.' Anyway, I support a temporary deletion (although technically, I'd like to have the article moved to my user space), not least because I see that in the Norwegian version of this article, no:Rosensverd, 'Prince Gabriel' has gone completely loco, not least on the discussion page, where we find a lengthy rant from the 'Prince' against a user who made a simple remark to the article's contents, cf. https://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diskusjon:Rosensverd, something that ought to be mitigated first. PS. As a curious observation, I point out that User:Norges Adelstand, the person who created the article on 18 July 2021, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%C3%98stby_family&oldid=1034195388, is the same person as User:46.15.68.181 above, who now supports that the article be deleted—because he couldn't have it his way. Brox Sox (talk) 06:36, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: It turns out that this madman also has vandalised the article Thanage and most likely several other articles. Here's the pre-vandalism version: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thanage&oldid=894413766 Here's the 'Prince's' first edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thanage&oldid=1030674902 Current version: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thanage&oldid=1176576370 'The basic title in the Thanage is the Thane, who in the Peerage is called a Baron. Superior to the Thane is the Median-Thane, who in the Peerage is called a Count. Superior to the Median-Thane is the King`s Thane, who is a Prince.' Brox Sox (talk) 07:01, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Reliisting to see if there are any objections to this article being userfied and moved to User:Brox Sox's User space.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:58, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Question: if the Østbys are a notable "Norwegian noble family", how come neither of the two Norwegian Wikipedias have an article for them? Any chance this is all a hoax?

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:17, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete /draftify as an appropriate ATD in light of subsequent comments and replies/ and Brox Sox can get this refunded if and when they're going to work on it, in order to prove the subject's notability, as they've said. I was unable to determine that the subject is real or notable after an attempt to do so myself.—Alalch E. 03:23, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Combined response to User:A. B. and User:Alalch E.: In fact, the family have an article on Norwegian Bokmål Wikipedia: https://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosensverd I don't know why there's no interwiki. As to notability, I (who didn't create this AfD) am not sure whether the family really are worthy of inclusion on English Wikipedia. I'm in favour of this being decided by the AfC review, not least because I need to make a full literature review before I may conclude when it comes to notability.

Some historical context: The Rosensverds were among the numerous local, well-off families who were 'mass ennobled' in the late 15th and early 16th centuries by the Dano-German kings of Norway, most of whom—including the Rosensverds—never gained any national importance. They're certainly not a hoax, however. Regarding the name, there were originally two presumably related families, known as the Østby family (known since the 15th century) and Handingmann (known since the 16th century).

The Østby family became extinct in the male line in the 17th or 18th century. They never used the name Rosensverd. 20th-century historians, however, dubbed them Rosensverd, because their coat of arms displayed a sword and two roses, but 21th-century historians have largely abandoned this custom of retrospectively attributing 'canting arms' names to 'nameless' medieval and early modern families like the Østbys based on their coat of arms. Brox Sox (talk) 05:31, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you would like the article to be draftified and you intend to start/resume work on it immediately I am not opposed to draftification. —Alalch E. 16:31, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whether it will be immediately, but absolutely within a few weeks. I do have some relevant books in my library, but I might have to visit the National Library for additional sources. Best, Brox Sox (talk) 12:03, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I do not see the notability of Rosensverd at all. The Norwegian article is bad, essentially the same as the one we have here, except for not having the fake name Østby in it. Geschichte (talk) 07:28, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I am interested to see what Brox Sox will come up with in draftspace. —Alalch E. 12:04, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I would like to add, once again, that I haven't created the article, thus, there's no prestige for me in keeping it. In fact, as stated above, I'm not sure whether the Østby family are notable for English Wikipedia (indeed, they are notable for Norwegian Bokmål Wikipedia, notwithstanding that the self-proclaimed Prince of Rosensverd has ravaged that article, too, something that needs to be mitigated once I'm done here).

First and foremost, I've studied their letters patent of 1458, which only survives as a copy from 1580. It says that on the recommendation of their paternal cousin Gudbrand Rolfsson, a canon of St. Mary's Church, Oslo, the brothers Sjøfar and Nils Sigurdssons were ennobled, given a coat of arms, and expected to be the king's 'servants and men at hand' (thienner oc handgenger mendt). The Prince of Rosensverd has manipulated the word thienner, modern-day tjener (servant), to be thane and handgenger mendt, modern-day håndgangne menn, to be 'hird member'. By the way, here's the last version of the article before I entered the field: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%C3%98stby_family&oldid=1072359733

After that, I tried to see whether individual members of the family had done something great or held high offices. But they haven't. I find a parish priest, a couple of lawspeakers. The rest, although being noble, were farmers by occupation. Some of them owned considerable (yet not tremendous) amounts of land, though. Third, the family's alleged stake in the Sudreim claim (a claim to the Norwegian throne), or for that sake any links to former royal houses of Norway, is unproved. By the way, 'Østby family' is not a 'fake name' as User:Geschichte claims above; it's used by reputable historians in third-party-published journals such as Norsk Slektshistorisk Tidsskrift. Brox Sox (talk) 13:26, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like we can already conclude that this is a non-notable subject then, no? —Alalch E. 13:33, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe or maybe not. What I meant to say is that the Østby family have an utterly boring and ordinary history—but boring does not equal non-notable. I've seen that English Wikipedia has heaps of articles on, be it, Russian noble families, with Artamonov (Russian nobility) being one example. This family is not more notable than the Østby family. And not to mention German noble families, such as Aachen (German nobility): 'owners of the Reigerding country estate', 'two family members (...) were part of the Royal Prussian Army'. Yawn! Definitely not more notable than the Østby family. So, that's why I have reached the conclusion that whilst the article in its current state should be unpublished because of poor quality, the Østby family might still be notable per Wikipedia's own guidelines, and this will be established when the draft is submitted for AfC review. Thus, unpublish the article, for God's sake, but keep the contents, including the revision history, in the draftspace. That's at least my thought. I don't really have any strong opinions here. Brox Sox (talk) 13:55, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that. —Alalch E. 14:06, 29 October 2023 (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.