Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin

Østby family

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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]
File:Prince GABRIEL of ROSENSVERD of The North Sea Empire T2020 Jubileum Standard Arms.jpg

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]

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/%C3%98stby_family&oldid=1180533159

Leave a Reply