Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/House of du Souich


 * 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   speedy . WP:CSD G7 per v/r - TP 15:34, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

House of du Souich

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article appears to be a complete fabrication. When I came across the article, I assumed that some of the idioms and spellings (fr:Duc for Duke, fr:Picardie for Picardy, and so on) indicated that it was a translation from a French source, and might quite probably have an article the French language Wikipedia, analogous to fr:Maison de Savoie, it:Casa Savoia and House of Savoy. There is no such article fr:Maison de Souich/fr:Maison du Souich. Le Souich is in the Nord-Pas-de-Calais région, not Picardy. Then there is this assertion: "'The House of du Souich is an ancient and illustrious French family. Connected by birth or marriage to a great number of the noble houses of France, the du Souich family reigned over northeastern France for hundreds of years as Lords of le Souich and Amiens as well as the surrounding territories.'" For such a purportedly important noble family, there is as striking paucity of available online references. While there is a real place of this name, and a number of people with the surname "du Souich" or "de Souich", it would seem to me apparent that there is no such thing as a noble "House of du Souich". Shirt58 (talk) 08:59, 16 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Analysis of references
 * passing mention of family name with no assertion that it is a noble family
 * autreches.free.fr/armorial/armorial.htm :Comment: The Analysis of references is unsigned. Please add your user reference for identification.
 * Entirely my own mistake. Stricken, and started again. --Shirt58 (talk) 13:21, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Analysis of references
 * Reference 1: this reference from the Bibliothèque nationale de France confirms the existence of a house of du Souich, and its people, such as it is.
 * Reference 2: this reference is from The National Library of France
 * Reference 3 might be from a book but appears to have no ISBN for right now.
 * Reference 4 is from User-generated content
 * Reference 5 is from User-generated content
 * "La généologie de la Famille JUDAS, Louis-Edmond-Ernest du Gard, 1890" appears to be a non-existent book.


 * Comment: Reference #18 links to http://visualiseur.bnf.fr/Visualiseur?Destination=Gallica&O=NUMM-36624 which is the "Annuaire de la Noblesse de France" published in 1897. Anyone in this chronicle is of Noble lineage. You may find in the summary the reference to the family du Souich (page 382). Interestingly enough, this book explains the variations of the name that occured in the late XIXth century. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.93.6.149 (talk) 14:42, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

KEEP

I must apologize for removing the two warnings that you posted yesterday. I am new to editing on Wiki and was unaware of how to reply to you about your concerns or what to do about the warnings.

This is not at all a fabrication. I am a member of this family. There are a number of sources related to the history of the du Souich lineage and I have marked as many as I can find online for the moment, as well as the books which have a great deal more information.

As to my use of duc rather than duke, etc, I simply wanted to use the two designations in this article. One is the French way of expressing the title, the other the English translation. If that is an error on Wiki, kindly let me know. My goal was to avoid repetition and to add a little flavor to the writing.

As to your concern that a family such as this would be known, well, that is simply not true in 'post-monarchy' Europe. There are thousands of noble families that have drifted off into the sunset after the abolision of their respective monarchies. I clearly explain the connection between the grand origins of the family and their noble but by no means royal destination in the 20th century. See the section Short History. That is, in fact, part of the interest in the family. A lesser known story.

Deleting this article would amount to cenorship of information for no just cause. Everything written on this page is factual. It took a great deal of research (months) on genelogical sites (which are sited, although in French), books, articles, archives, etc at the Bibliotheque Nationale de France to put all this together. This information is the beginnings of an eventual book on the subject. I wrote the page in English because the book will also be in English.

Le Souich is on the border of Pas de Calais, which if you continued to read a little further down you'd see is also called Picardy (Picardie) in France. And historically the region was always referred to as "Picardie" and not Pas de Calais (Nord or otherwise).

As to the point about the illustrious family, this was the case before the Revolution in what was called the Ancien Régime. From French history we know that many families lost their prominence at this period. That doesn't make the history false. It makes it less known, which is all the more reason it include the page.

There are many books (not digital) referencing the family. And in any ancient archives of the French Noblesse the du Souich family is present. Several of these books are included in the references.

One final thought, the name is properly spelt du Souich, so anytime you see de Souich, it is either false or a typo. The de, de la or du in French mean the same as di or van in other European countries - the family is landed gentry. It means 'of' a certain place. By virtue of the name, then, this page is not, as you say, a "complete fabrication". It is not a fabrication at all.

If you have some factual evidence to dispute my facts, kindly present them. Otherwise, I'd greatly appreciate if you'd remove this rather offense warning which basically states that I'm lying.

Many thanks in advance.--France2007 (talk) 12:50, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Keep

My point is more administrative than factual: it seems strange to me that someone who did a quick google search could lodge such a claim against what appears to be a thorough article. The beauty of Wikipedia, if I'm not mistaken, is that information that has hitherto been ignored or forgotten can find the light of day. Not every bit of information is on the Internet already. Seems to me like the author knows what he is talking about (full disclosure, I know the author) and it seems contrary to Wikipedia principles to call someone a liar or their work a hoax without facts to support the claim. My two cents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.34.61.48 (talk) 14:33, 16 November 2012 (UTC) According to this comment, this IP has already !voted as a logged in user.--v/r - TP 15:31, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Keep

Hi, I just saw that this page was created and was set as 'Article for deletion'. So I'm just posting to testify that the article is correct.

Le Souich is in the department of Pas-de-Calais, Region Nord pas-de-calais, administratively. But this is not relevant to the House of du Souich because the family is from Amiens which is in the Picardie. The village is at the border between the Pas de Calais and Somme departments which respectively belong to Nord pas de calais region and Picardie region. Check out Google Maps for geographic position : The du Souich family comes from all of these regions and departments. Also, Nord Pas de Calais is a very recent denomination of the land from the 1789 revolution. The old names of this territory are Flandre, Artois, Picardie, Champagne, Hainaut, Rethel, Ponthieu, Valois, Vermandois. Which back in the days were called Provinces and had their own Counts and Lords. Armorial web site lists all these families :

Interestingly, the actual commune borders (city district border) are common with the Department borders AND Region borders.

Additionally, there are a large number of books at the Bibliothèque de France which are not yet digitised and speak to the origins of this family. Some of those are included, I see, in the references section. As a Frenchman, I can assure you that not even half of our noblesse have wikipedia pages. Only those that were created or continued by the new regime under the Empire and not the ancient régime. You may find some on the internet listing all the relations between families. On the following page they talk about the wedding of Lord Jean du Souich. 

The House of du Souich is related as explained in the article to other noble families that already has wikipedia pages like the House of Chatillon : or the House of France back in the middle ages.

The link provided in the reference number 6, shows a lot of the genealogy of the du Souich family. All links to the Royal family can be found through reference number 4.

In addition to this article, we can add to the notable ancestors, "Floridas du Souich", who died in Azincourt Battle on the 25th of October 1415. The name appears in the book "AZINCOURT" of Gérard BACQUET published in 1977 : Somes other noble directory books in the early days talk about the family :  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.93.6.149 (talk) 15:12, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - Hi, in response to Sue Rangell and Lukeno94, the IP address which you are concern with is a building of the French government. There are 1000s of people who work here, using the internet. More info on private networks here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_network. Whether or not some other person had problems with Wikipedia from this IP in the past has nothing to do with my comments or the veracity of this article. This has turned into the absurd. If I may, France2007, my advice is to consult the sites http://www.roi-france.com and http://roglo.eu/roglo with your information. They are concerned with the descendants of French Kings for the first website and the second one is concerned with persons with title of nobility. These sites are run by Fench historians who know who will be able to properly and fairly judge your claims, unlike it appears these editors. The majority of the connections to other families in these lines that you describe are already made there. I think it's a more professional way to go.81.93.6.149 (talk) 10:34, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - This user's talk page on the French Wikipedia: Discussion_utilisateur:81.93.6.149 for those researching these IPs. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 01:19, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - haven't the slightest clue whether this could be notable or not; but the identical formatting of the three keep voters concerns me greatly. Lukeno94 (talk) 19:12, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Also note that two of the three have only ever edited either this talk page or the nominated page. Lukeno94 (talk) 20:42, 16 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment I second Lukeno94's point about the keep !votes here, probable SPAs? Although we should not be assuming bad faith. That said, I think the issue here is not whether the family or surname exists; it clearly does. The issue is that the historiography and claims made in the article are not supported by the given references (as far as I could see, and given my weak French). In a way this is also a very much an essay, even discounting the COI issue. I would recommend stubbing the article and asking the contributor(s) to properly source their claims. "There's a book in French that verifies what I wrote" even if true, is never a valid argument to keep something around. § FreeRangeFrog 20:48, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * STRONG Delete per wp:snow I suspect hoax, socks, and astroturf. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉  21:18, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I've seen evidence that the more prolific of the IPs is a known bad-faith editor. And you and the other IP have very few edits - so I do now suspect this is a hoax and that you're sockpuppeting. I now vote Delete. Lukeno94 (talk) 12:11, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I refer you to the private networks argument above.--France2007 (talk) 02:18, 26 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment -- I think the comments after my own explanation were simply copying my format, much like I am doing now. For those of us who are new to Wikipedia these sorts of rules are not self-evident. One of the comments even states that she knows me, the author of the article, so there is no hidden COI. I am a littled confused, however, about the comment that I am a SPA. How do you suppose that someone is to begin editing on Wikipedia? This is my first page creation and subsequently my first edits as well. I created my account yesterday. Neither of these points makes what I have written false or a hoax. The other commentor (Rangell) doesn't seem to have anything of value to add and is offensive. Granted, the article does need more references, and as soon as the sources become digital, I'll certainly do so. In the meantime, all I can hope to do is cite the books. Just for clarification, does Wikipedia not permit essay style contributions, even well-documented? Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by France2007 (talk • contribs) 22:15, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It may be coincidence - if it is proved to be so, then I will happily take back my point. But you all wrote quite a lot of information without really giving much to back it up (apart from the last of the IPs) - I didn't check the sources myself, but perhaps Sue Rangell did. I'm not assuming bad faith or anything like that, just voicing my concerns. Lukeno94 (talk) 22:25, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Just one other thought. When creating this page, the following page was used as a template to figure out how to structure a Wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_La_Tour_d'Auvergne. It has just as much information in narrative form and many less sources, in fact none online. Why is there an immediate problem with the current page (harsh to call someones work a hoax!) and not with this other similar page? Thanks.--62.34.61.48 (talk) 22:55, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd like to point out that I wasn't the one who called this a hoax; I haven't even looked at any sources, hence the lack of a vote. Lukeno94 (talk) 08:57, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 17 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment I've asked for help at fr:Wikipédia:Oracle, which is their WP:RD. I'm leaning toward delete, but I'm not completely sure.  Nyttend (talk) 17:29, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Dhatier responded to my request at Wikipédia:Oracle with the following comment: "It doesn't seem that any historical Du Souich family exists. The older Du Souich I found is Charles Amable Alban JUDAS du SOUICH (1812-1888), not living in a period families were still ruling villages or lands."  I was already leaning toward delete, and his comment pushes me to the point of deciding that this is surely a hoax.  Nyttend (talk) 23:26, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Comment: Kindly note that this is the history of Charles Amable Alban Judas du Souich's family. His ancestors. In the article, it is clearly written that the family was far from their status as local rulers at the time of his birth, ever since the Revolution. Have any of you voters actually read the article in question? The source, by the way, to Charles Amable is already listed on this page's references. --France2007 (talk) 13:18, 19 November 2012 (UTC) Also kindly note that he legally changed his name in 1896 from Judas su Souich back to du Souich. This is clearly sited in the article from a governmental source.--France2007 (talk) 23:56, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did look at the article beforehand. Nyttend (talk) 13:54, 19 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment to voters: Given that the claims of "complete fabrication" and "hoax" were cited on this article prematurely, within the hour that it was first written, I was unable to include all the sources. Over the last few days, I have done so. I invite you to read the article before voting taking into account that practically every line written about the connections of this family is supported by other Wikipedia pages or other verifiable sources. For those of you who do not speak French, most of the pages have an English version available. Now that I and others have been able to complete (or nearly) the citing, this page has more cites than most other pages of its kind and theme, pages that are not under scrutiny for fabrication.--France2007 (talk) 23:53, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Strong Keep: I have just read this article on the family of du Souich and I find that there's no evidence of 'complete fabrication'. Actually, I find that the article is well documented - perhaps this was completed recently, perhaps other voters weren't able to read the French sources. It should be noted that this family's crest is found in the "La vraye et parfaite science des armoiries, ou l'indice armorial; augm. (etc.) par Pierre Palliot" which is the official book of the crests of the "Maisons souveraines" (Houses) in France. euraldic.com also has the crest description of this family. The most recent notable member of the family, Charles Amable Alban du Souich, which page is considered as "to be created" in Wikipedia http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Le_Bistro/Articles_%C3%A0_cr%C3%A9er_en_2012 is very well known in France for his discovery in the coalfield in the Somme/Picardie/Nord-Pas-de-Calais region. One of his ancestor Vincent Judas, Lord du Souich, is mentioned in the Estouvy Branch of the "Annuaire de la noblesse de France et des maisons souveraines de" p.208. This book is an official chronical of French Nobles, plus he is mentioned as Sr, acronym of Seigneur, which means Lord in French. Clearly, the family descends from nobles lines. WP:HASREFS WP:CONTIN Belongs to French History WP:HASPOT by linking it to page of Charles-Amable-Alban Judas du Souich, ingénieur when written and to the fr:Armorial des familles nobles et notables de Picardie.Matt 800 (talk) 17:23, 21 November 2012 (UTC) — Matt 800 (talk) 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 00:05, 24 November 2012 (UTC)




 * Request to Close It seems that once you take away all of the sock and meat puppetry, and consider actual external sources, there is a unanymous call to delete this article as a WP:Hoax. This discussion should be closed and the article deleted. Also considering the nature of the protests, and the behavior of these single-topic IPs on French Wikipedia, it should probably be salted as well. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 01:23, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * COMMENT: Note that the above editor is the only one who continues to call this article a hoax. Even the editor who originally added this page to the delete list has, upon further review, written that the house of du souich exists. The concern is now notability and sources. The votes from this user, therefore, are not constructive. The continued claims of hoax and WP:AOBF are unhelpful and unneccessary. WP:AGF, WP:BITE--France2007 (talk) 02:18, 26 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. I am not convinced this article is a complete hoax, the existence of a du Souich coat of arms is clear from the sources  for instance.  The complaint that this might not be a book because it does not have an ISBN number is quite a foolish statement to make about a book published in 1664.  However, I still think we should delete this on grounds of notability even if it is not a hoax for the following reasons.
 * The great majority of the article concerns itself with the descent of the du Souich's from notable forbears like Charlemagne and William the Conquerer. First of all, the du Souich name was not established until many centuries later (a marriage in 1671 according to the article) and notability is not inherited.  Secondly, all this notable ancestry is sourced only to an offline family genealogy so we have a big verifiability problem.  In any case a family genealogy hardly counts as WP:RS and certainly does not count towards WP:N.
 * No noble title is even claimed for this supposedly noble family. The coat of arms does not really mean anything, those are easy to obtain and held by ranks as low as knights.  If the family does, or did, hold a noble title the holders should be easy to find an identify in RS, but nothing like that seems to exist.
 * Comment: In France, especially during the Middle Ages, the rank of Seigneur (Lord of a territory) was a rank passed down through families. I understand the confusion in English, however, as Lord in Anglo-Saxon culture is a courtesy title given to families with other titles e.g. Baron, Earl (Count in France) etc.--France2007 (talk) 13:05, 26 November 2012 (UTC)


 * For a family to be notable they should hold a notable hereditary title, have done something notable as a family, or have multiple notable members. After discounting all the WP:INHERIT material, we are left with only Charles Amable Alban Judas du Souich as anything like notable.  His notability is quite minor (as Inspector of Mines) and I suggest that the authors write an article about him instead.  Spinning  Spark  12:20, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: Charles Amable was much more than just the Inspector of Mines. There are roads named after him in northern France and church dedications and all kinds of honors. He was a Commandeur in the Légion d'Honneur. But I see that none of that makes any difference because you aren't French nor live here. So that certainly goes to lack of notability in an English context. Good point.--France2007 (talk) 13:05, 26 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - spend some time working on nobility articles and you start to get a sense of what is generally available (in terms of reliable sources) to verify the existence / achievements / heritage of particular families. There are rare exceptions (like families that have been intentionally "wiped" from the record books by a rival family) but I don't think this is one of them (even in those cases, a record of the conflict itself usually remains). I'm not seeing any of that for this article. That doesn't mean it is a hoax, but I can understand how some editors might come to that conclusion. Whether or not it exists or existed is actually irrelevant. We still need reliable independent sources to verify notability and any claims made in the article itself. The long list of fr.wiki "sources" actually hurt claims of notability because Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Without WP:RS, this is just another (ironically) noble cause. The SPA vote-spam is particularly unhelpful, especially since few cite any policies to back up their claims. The old "I just happened to be reading this (thus, obviously) important article and noticed it had been nominated for deletion so was persuaded to !vote here" is particularly overused. Stalwart 111  03:47, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm not sure the final sentence is fair. Being completely new to wikipedia and seeing editors voting based on no knowledge of the information nor having read the resources, of course I (the author) appealed to fellow academics here in France who have both. Whether or not that constitutes vote-spam I'm not sure, but it does explain the reason for the single-use accounts/users and lack of cited wikipedia policies.--France2007 (talk) 13:05, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, off-Wikipedia canvassing is often frowned upon - the more aggressive form is referred to as "meat-puppetry", where you get a group of otherwise non-editors to come here specifically to vote a particular way. I don't think asking fr.wiki contributors would amount to the same thing, nor would asking non-Wiki contributors to start contributing. It can be a fine line, so just be careful about your motives for doing so. Stalwart 111  23:21, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Note from author: The last two voters make some very good points about the sources of the articles and its overall notability. As notability is a subjective point, I understand that for an Anglo-Saxon readership this content is of questionable importance. For the French, however, it is a part of their history and collective, current culture. Ergo the impasse. The reliable, independent sources are exclusively in French, hence the worry by some readers of their verifability. Fair enough. In light of this, I am voluntarily removing the page and it will be written on fr.wiki where greater attention can be given to the sources and cultural/historical knowledge therein.--France2007 (talk) 13:05, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I think this is a very good idea; fr.wikipedia will be better able to judge the sources. Lectonar (talk) 14:01, 26 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for cleaning up the article, that is much more focused on the subject, but I am still in favour of deleting. You are mistaken to believe that we are judging this article harshly because of the French language sources.  French sources are worth just as much here as English language sources.  It is also incorrect that we reject articles because they are unimportant to Angl-Saxons.  In fact "importance" is not a criterion we use at all—our main criterion is notability which is objectively measured by how much it is discussed in reliable sources.  Those sources may be in French, but there is the problem, I don't see in the sources presented (although my French is not good) verification that the du Souich's even held the rank of Chevalier or Seigneur (as claimed in the article and here).  In any case, these ranks are equivalent in England, I think, to Knight and Squire which are not considered intrinsically notable.  There is a good case for the notability of Charles Amable du Souich (and he could have an article), but not for an article on the family based on what we have so far.  Spinning  Spark  19:19, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I could not have put it better. An article about Charles Amable du Souich might be a good idea if it could be written objectively, and not make claims that he was head of any houses or any similar outlandish claims. But, the sock and meat puppetry that is sorely apparent in these arguments lends me to believe that such a neutral article is not possible. Indeed, these single-issue editors give every indication that they are attempting to use wikipedia to propagate a piece of fiction. In fact, there is only one single verifiable mention that the last name was ever even used. (a doctor in 1896) What is "La généologie de la Famille JUDAS, Louis-Edmond-Ernest du Gard, 1890", and where can I find a copy? I cannot find this coat of arms independent of the author(s) of this article, and I have tried dearly. The book cited does not appear to exist. This flimsy citation is the ONLY shred of evidence that has been presented and there is no way to confirm it. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:23, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Sue, as I noted and linked above, there is a 17th century book reference in the article to the coat of arms which can be viewed on gbooks. The text is;
 * S OVICH, porte ''d'argent a trois Allerions de gueules, escartelé d'or à deux Bandes de gueules.
 * "Argent" is silver of course, "allerions" is a heraldic term for eagles (of a particular kind) and "gueules" is a heraldic term for red—three red eagles on a silver backround. "Escartele" is a heraldic term for quartered (with).  "Bandes" is a heraldic term for right-handed diagonals, in this case two of them ("deux") on a gold ("or") background.  The depiction in the article accurately follows the heraldry as far as I can tell.  Spinning  Spark  22:27, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Spark, The editor, Rangell, has claimed that the coat of arms is a hoax as well and put the page up for speedy deletion. I appealed by changing it to regular deletion. Regardless of the notabililty of this page, the coat of arms is verified by several different sites. You would be so kind as to add this comment to the following page, please? https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Blason_de_la_Famille_du_Souich.svg Many thanks.--France2007 (talk) 11:34, 28 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you, that is helpful, but where is there any evidence that there was ever a HOUSE? Afterall, this article is supposed to be about a House of du Souich, and I have yet to see anyone produce a single shred of evidence that such house ever existed. In fact reliable french sources, cited by other concerned editors, have shown just the opposite. Repeated searches of Official and Unofficial French sources such as this one repeatedly fail to show any such French House or Heraldry. Where is the WP:NOTABILITY of this apparently fictional house? --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:14, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Proof of peerage: The independent sources listed on this page, and reviewed below, each illustrate that the family is part of the French Noblesse (Peerage), which is an inherited status. People are not named in the Annuaire de Noblesse source if they are not of noble blood. The Annuaire is something akin to Debrett's Peerage in England. "Seigneur" in French means Lord in English, which in the ancient regime was an owner of territory given to his family by the royalty of their time. The title of Seigneur is inherited as was the territory over which the family ruled. A Squire is an écuyer in French, which if it is a person's only title, as mentioned, is not noble.
 * References proving noble status:

All of these official online references evidence the existence of the House of du Souich, part of the French peerage since the middle ages. As do, by the way, the four other books listed in the Further Reading section of this article, which are all available at the Bibliothèque Nationale de France.Matt 800 (talk) 22:01, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 1. Annuaire de la Noblesse, 1897 referencing Edme-Alban du Souich, son of Charles Amable
 * 2. Annuaire de la Noblesse, 1909 referencing the marriage in 1735 between Vincent Judas Seigneur du Souich and Marie Marguerite, daughter of Jean-Bapiste Morgan Seigneur of Warvillers and d'Estouvy - both of noble blood.
 * 4. Les antiquites, histoires et choses plus remarquables de la ville d'Amiens, 1642 (no ISBN) referencing on page 322 the genealogy of the House of du Souich (all marriages, lineage) since 1550s. For instance, Nicolas du Souich Seigneur (Lord) de Tilloy les Arras, de la Ferriere, d'Argiual & de la Motte, Maître des Requêtes de l'Hôtel du Roi Louis XII (Counselor to Louis XII).
 * 5. Ibid, page 355, references additionnally the decription of the coat of arms of the House of du Souich.
 * Seigneur is most definitely not equivalent to English Lord in the sense of a peerage (see for instance).  It may literally mean Lord in the sense of a hereditary landowner, but this is no more than an English country squire.  Not notable in terms of peerages alone.  The lowest rank given the title Lord in the peerage is Baron and Seigneur is well below that, let alone an intrinsically notable title like Duke.  Spinning  Spark  23:53, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Your reference quotes the meaning of Seigneur as squire or gentry (and that in Canada based on the French system). The rank of French noblesse is a little different than in England (In French, but there is a diagram halfway down the page.): Prince, Duc, Marquis, Comte, Vicomte, Baron, Chevalier (hereditary knight), Ecuyer (a young noble charged with accompanying a knight into war). These are the noble titles in France. The Seigneurs du Souich were (in the ancient regime) at various times in history either chevalier and ecuyer. One example: "Jean du Souich Ecuyer, Seigneur de la Ferrier..., brother of Louys du Souich Chevalier in 1594..." Both of these are noble titles, albeit low ranking ones. But that is all the article ever claims. Finally, other encyclopedias and dictionaries, like Larousse, define Seigneur as "during the ancien régime, a person of noble rank, who occupies the highest position in a territory." France2007 (talk) 01:46, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * ...squire or gentry. The fact is gentry no more confers notability on a family than squire.  Such low ranks are not deserving of a Wikipedia article merely because of their rank, although it is still open to establish family notability against the GNG.  But so far, no such sources have been forthcoming.  Spinning  Spark ' 06:53, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

QUESTION Why isn't there a French article on this "House". I personally would find these arguments much more convincing if this lemon could be slid past the French Wikipedians. Nobody is saying that there ween't a few nobles who may have had this last name, but that is completely different from a House of du Souich. My French is limited but bold statements need to be backed up by bold citations and sources, and there are -0- present. Listings of obscure marriages in the 1800s mean nothing. The entire history of this AfD is filled with sockpuppetry and vote-spam. The article is now a stub of what it was because it's single-issue author has been forced to take down all of the grandiose statements made. Where is the WP:NOTABILITY? Why is there no French Wikipedia article? --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 01:52, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I find your comments offensive. The only part of this article I removed was a rather long account of the lineage of the family which I am putting on wiki.fr. I was not forced to do so, but chose to because, as you say, most of the voters here cannot read the French sources and that caused reliability problems. The French site is forthcoming. By the way, a family is made up of nothing more than a string of marriages and births (we list them from the 1600s to the 20th century). A family (or a House when the family happens to be noble) is no more than that.France2007 (talk) 02:07, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I am very sorry if you find my comments offensive. They are certainly not meant to be. I am merely pointing out the dubious history of this entire AfD objectively and unbiasedly. If you find that to be personally offensive, I am sorry. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 02:12, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You were not forced to take down the material because we cannot read the French sources. Please stop repeating that ridiculous claim.  It is disputed that the sources verify that there is a notable House du Souich.  It is irrelevant that sources are in French, we can easily find speakers of almost any language on Wikipedia if necessary and machine translation will usually confirm the basics.  Spinning  Spark  06:45, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't say I was forced. To the contrary, I said "I was not forced to do so, but CHOSE to..." Editor Ragnell suggested I was forced. I'm not repeating any such claim. My point is simply that it is more difficult to verify a French source from Bibilo nationale de France in Paris for someone not in France. Valid point and why I took down the parts that did not have sources online.--France2007 (talk) 11:34, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

More info regarding Notability can be found here: At This Site. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 02:37, 28 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Request to CLOSE and SALT per WP:SNOW. Since the last request to close this discussion there have been two additional opinions of Delete and no Keeps. Since it's nomination this AfD has been fraught with single issue IP editors, socks, and vote-spam. Nobody seems to feel that there is any WP:NOTABILITY and at least two editors believe that this article is a WP:HOAX --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 02:48, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per Sue Rangell above. Qworty (talk) 04:25, 28 November 2012 (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.