Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buttigieg De Piro (2nd nomination)


 * 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 Delete - The deletes have definately managed to show issues with WP:N, WP:V and WP:NOR. -Djsasso (talk) 16:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Buttigieg De Piro
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

As with an AfD filed yesterday by the same creator, this is a turgid mess about a non-notable Maltese who seems to have assumed an old extinct title of nobility. The article has zero biographical information about de Piro himself (and sources describing more seem near to nonexistent); it is entirely about the granting of the title, describing the order of precedence such titles should be accorded, and a great deal of original research. Beyond that, there seems to be a spurious claim, as Malta ceased to recognize such titles in 1975, yet this title was "revived" in 1987 for the current claimant. Much of the article is in Italian or French. Fails WP:N, WP:NOR, WP:SYN. The previous AfD had the startling Keep reason of "Page looks legitimate" and an equally startling unanimity of "Per above." The article hasn't budged in two years.  Ravenswing  14:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete No reliable sources I can see. Moreover, it looks like it was cut-and-pasted from somewhere, or copied word-for-word from a source. Blueboy96 18:05, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * SAVE What a load of nonsense.. no reliable source... I think you guys are on drugs... and making my life hell by putting these in for deletion... If you actually read the material and question the SOURCE before putting them to deletion you MIGHT UNDERSTAND. User talk:Tancarville 937;, 25 May 2008 (EST)
 * Comment: Quite aside from the insults and the WP:OWN problem you seem to evince, I've a few comments. First off, this ought be no surprise to you, because a glance at your talk page shows you've had numerous articles up for deletion before, on much the same grounds.  Secondly, you have quoted yourself as a source in each of these articles, something WP:V explicitly states is not acceptable.  Thirdly, there's an outright undue weight going on here, where you claim notability for dozens upon dozens of noble titles for a nation slightly smaller in size than the town of Plymouth, Massachusetts, many of them long extinct and with articles that contain much of the same text cut-and-pasted throughout.  Fourthly, the sources you quote are either very unlikely we could obtain them for review (quite aside from that the "Secretariat of Grace and Justice of the Kingdom of Castile" does not seem to exist) or are conveniently found on your own website.     Ravenswing  05:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * '''Further Comment: The sources which the administrator is saying are "unreliable" include the record of each grant found at the National Library of Malta, the findings of a Royal Commission and published by the House of Lords, other official correspondences presented to the House of Lords, as well as the official records found in a number of previously reigning houses and the records of one still reigning house (Spain). There is no reason to delete. - If however the real objection is only that some of the text is in Italian, Latin, French, Spanish or Maltese, then the relative translations (or synopsis) will be introduced over the next period. This should also be viewed: User talk:Tancarville 1702;, 25 May 2008 (EST)


 * Delete. It looks like a copypaste because it pretty much is - most of this editor's articles are virtually identical copies of each other. andy (talk) 08:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Save. The Marquis Buttigieg de Piro is the Marquis de Piro.. Why is there another page being reverted? Nicholas de Piro is only the Baron of Budaq and the title of Marquis is Spanish and the Marquis Buttigieg de Piro is the only registered member of this title. Secondly this is the second time we are heading into deletion... I feel that the latest works by User talk:Tancarville is purely historical and a whole lot better then what was published, including with the rest of those recently done.. Please see sense and make comments rather then delete. User talk:Tancarville is a recogisable genealogist and historian in Malta. User talk:Count Gauci 20:58;, 26 May 2008 (EST) — Count Gauci (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

1. It was Wikipedia who asked Tancarvile to improve the articles. Tancarville has started to do this. The emphasis is to highlight the historical relevance and issues concerning each title.
 * Further comment

2. All recent updates contain a precise reference to the grants. Checking each and every reference for this arcane subject, in no less than five languages, is no easy task. Postitive criticism from a Wikipedia administrator is appreciated but vindictive undermining is not. There is always room for improvement.

3. Each title has its own history. In regard to those which were created by the Grand Masters who ruled Malta, the "remainders" vary in their meaning and effect. For this reason it was thought best to quote verbatim the respective remainders, and this in Latin i.e. the original text.

4. The fact that titles are no longer recognized at law in Malta, does NOT mean that they have been abolished.

5. In regard to the foreign titles of nobility which were recognized by the Grand Masters, these are by far even more complex, not only because of the 1739 ad 1795 legislation, but also because the most of the original fons honorum have long gone (with the exception of the King of Spain).

6. It is a useless exercise to merge all titles into one group. At best, one can identify different classifications. (For example, the 1878 Royal Commission classified Rohan's creations into 3 groups). - But in fairness's sake, this is an exercise which could only be done once all the relative information is up and runnning.

7. If anybody has issues with the fact that by 1800 Malta had an advanced form of Nobility, that is his/her problem. - Facts are facts.

8. Tancarville has also made available the FULL texts in *.pdf format of the 1878 Royal Commission and official correspondence.

9. Whilst the 1878 Commission's findings are regarded as authoritative, some aspects required revisiting not only because of some apparent errors and contradictions found in the Report itself, but also because of subsequent developments.

10. Moreover, at the end of each title's description, there is a list of direct and indirect proofs of each title's legitimacy and authoritative documentation, emphasising the Primary source and moving downards in terms of (relative) importance.

11. It is definitely not true that the only difference between one title and the other is "a change in the date an heading". Some may be very similar, but others are radically different.

12. Old general legislation (i.e. pre-1800) is quoted in full for the convenience of the reader. If anybody ventures a argument or claim in respect of any one of the titles, he/she might as well be reminded of the general pitfalls. This "problem", which is common to all updated entries, can be solved by the simple expedient of setting up a separate page.

13. If Wikipedia's administrators want to get some sort of warped pleasure out of creating unnecessary polemics, simply because they are jealous of the Maltese nation's historic identity, let them please delete the whole lot. User talk:Tancarville 1:08;, 26 May 2008 (EST)
 * Comment: Alright ... here we go. First off, almost all the non-self-published sources Tancarville cites are unavailable for review to the vast majority of Wikipedia editors, which debars them from qualifying as reliable sources.  For the non-English language texts, WP:V holds the following: "Where editors use non-English sources, they should ensure that readers can verify for themselves the content of the original material and the reliability of its author/publisher ... Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations made by Wikipedia editors."


 * Secondly, while Tancarville holds himself out as a renowned geneaologist on his own and a number of websites, no reliable sources say so. A G-search for "Charles Said-Vassallo" turns up only 83 unique hits, all of them various webpages.  There are zero hits on Google Scholar for him, something of an ominous sign.  WP:V further holds: "'Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.' (emphasis in the original)"
 * So far, and in violation of WP:V, we are taking Tancarville's unsupported word for the existence of the sources he claims and for the accuracy of the information he gives on his website ... and startlingly, we have been doing so for years now. It's also an ominous sign how readily he accuses anyone questioning his sources or seeking to apply Wikipedia policies and guidelines to his articles of being "vindictive" or having some animus towards Malta, and I'd appreciate some answers  that don't boil down to "How dare you?"    Ravenswing  14:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete There is no animosity towards Malta; but policies are policies and they should be followed. No one has yet succeeded in verifying these sources, and therefore the article fails WP:V. There are notability concerns (WP:N) if no one can find much about any of the holders of the title. In two years, the article hasn't changed, and therefore there are sufficient concerns to warrant deletion. PeterSymonds (talk)  14:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete I have concerns about claims made before and all "references" here are housed on the user's website. Charles 18:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete We read above that 4. The fact that titles are no longer recognized at law in Malta, does NOT mean that they have been abolished. Oh. Then I wonder what "abolished" means. Legally, they're meaningless. In what other sense might they be meaningful? Do the Maltese think about them? Well, one Maltese (or perhaps Australian) "noble" says: I doubt the general population occupies any of its waking hours thinking about the nobility. The article leaves me confused: Is it a Spanish title? Whatever title it might be -- Maltese, Spanish, Bhutanese, Martian -- why should anyone be interested that D. Anthony Buttigieg de Piro claims to have it? The article doesn't say that he's a notable scientist, lutenist, unicyclist, flint-knapper, anything. -- Hoary (talk) 16:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: It means, I daresay, that like many other defrocked nobles, the claimants still loudly proclaim them to anyone who'll listen.   Ravenswing  16:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Should not have lasted this long on wikipedia. Quale (talk) 17:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete When the subject of Maltese nobility was previously discussed back in 2005/2006, and it was decided that the articles could be kept, the concept of notability on Wikipedia was in its infancy. The discussion was thus largely around verifiability, which was thought to be borderline in this case (because it's all one person's research and no-one else claimed to be able to access the sources) but passed muster at the time. However, these days notability has taken on a much more definite form: significant coverage in reliable sources that are independant of the subject. That's the criteria that determines whether a subject should have an article, these days. The articles cite research by the author, who apparently makes claims of Maltese nobility for himself, and is therefore not independant. Therefore such research cannot be considered as evidence for notability. What remains are the sources listed that appear independant. The question is, what evidence is there that they contain significant coverage of the subject? Is it not more likely that these Maltese titles are mentioned in passing or in lists in these sources? Unless it can be demonstated case by case for each of these titles that they have significant coverage in reliable sources that are independant of the subject, they should be deleted. Ryan Paddy (talk) 23:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:INHERITED (even if this were a notable title it wouldn't necessarily confer any notability on its current claimant) and WP:COATRACK (contains no information about the purported subject of the article but has been used as an excuse to pack in all sorts of claims about other things). —David Eppstein (talk) 00:36, 28 May 2008 (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.