Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Impler family


 * 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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:38, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Impler family

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Did a before search for the Impler Family, and didn't come up with any sources that establishes this "family" as notable. Also, notable members section doesn't have any sources for it. If sources do come to light on this, please ping me, and if it rises to the leve of WP:GNG, I'll withdraw. SPF121188 (talk this way) (contribs) 15:00, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:52, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete We're not a genealogy software, remember? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:17, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:39, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:NOTGENEALOGY. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 03:42, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep or move. The Impler family is the source of the name of Implerstraße station about which we have an article and the actual Implerstraße, about which we don't yet. The state-run (and as yet very incomplete) Historisches Lexikon Bayerns has an article about the Munich Patrician families in general, which mentions in passing the Impler family as one of the patrician families. The article we have could reasonably be moved to "Hans Impler" as well. The Impler family and Hans Impler in particular get mentioned by sources on Bavarian history with sustained attention over several centuries. Jahaza (talk) 06:16, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Reply- I looked at these sources you have above,, and it appears as though these are passing mentions of one person or another, with very little in depth coverage that would go toward an article for the family. I can actually agree with your point of moving this article to "Hans Impler." If you find more sources, please let me know. Thanks! SPF121188  (talk this way) (contribs) 12:57, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:46, 11 October 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:24, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Repurpose as an article on Johann Impler, who appears to be of minor notability. the article appears to be an exact dictionary translation of one in the German WP, whose standards are reputed to be higher than those of the English WP.  An entry in a Bavarian biographic  should be enough to indicate notability.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:14, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

*Keep or I also agree repurpose as an article on Johann Impler per User:Peterkingiron. Taung Tan (talk) 13:55, 23 October 2022 (UTC)' change to Delete  ' as source not found. (not vote) Taung Tan (talk) 02:47, 29 October 2022 (UTC) Relisting comment: Final relist. And a question, how exactly does an AFD closer "repurpose" article under a deletion discussion? That sounds like an editing job. I also don't see how a repurpose overcomes the arguments for deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:36, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep and repurpose as an article on Johann Impler per Peterkingiron.4meter4 (talk) 23:50, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment "Johann Impler was a councilman and was tortured and beheaded by the rebels during the civil uprising in 1385, as they held him to be partly responsible for the high tax burden (Impler uprising)." appears in DeWiki and also Munchenwiki, is happily mirrored in the city history of Munich but there is no source for this information that I could find in German. Searching Bavaricon, the Bavarian archive, merely gets passing genealogical mentions of the existence of various Implers, including mention of a 1376 church provost Johann Impler. That fact of 1376 Johann's existence is in fact the only thing confirmed by the only source cited in DeWiki for the Impler family article. Munchenwiki's article about Implerstrasse and indeed Implerplatz repeats the information but its only reference is to booking website hotel-mix.de. So quite apart from the very real concerns regarding the notability of all Implers (the DeWiki article not passing WP:GNG standards), we also have totally unverified information on Johann Impler gently spawning across Germany. Even if it were verified, it'd still be very scant ground for notability. Do we really want to repurpose a GNG-failing article about a family to a completely unsourced assertion about an individual? Because I, for one, can only see the spectre of WP:CIRCULAR here... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:45, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It might be an ancient hoax/legend, but it's described in a number of German sources. It's not at all based on the hotel web site. Jahaza (talk) 22:51, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete. The only source cited is a dead link. Only two members of this family are listed here, one of whom is described as "Franz Impler, son of Hans Impler, a residential house owner in Munich and benefactor". If the most notable thing one can say about a person is that he owned a house, I'm just going to have to allude to the words of Shania Twain. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:40, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Has one source, can't find anything about this that would be notable.  Dr vulpes  (💬 • 📝) 03:10, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep The three page article in a German book on heraldry here is footnoted, which suggests other sources in German likely exist. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 20:22, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Above editors, pls check the source provided by User:Ficaia. Taung Tan (talk) 18:13, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * , yeah I took a look at the source, and couldn't make much sense of it... but maybe I'm missing something. I figured to let the closer figure out what it is and see if it can go toward a keep result, but I wouldn't think so. SPF121188  (talk this way) (contribs) 20:50, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * That's the very source I quoted above - "That fact of 1376 Johann's existence is in fact the only thing confirmed by the only source cited in DeWiki for the Impler family article." I added some helpful bold this time around. The source has zero value, carries no suggestion that there may be more sources and I did take some care above to document the search for those sources and report accurately on the lack of them. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:01, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * "The source has zero value, carries no suggestion that there may be more sources"
 * It literally has footnotes in it referring to the de:Monumenta Boica. That's not a suggestion that there are other sources, it's an explicit statement that there are. Jahaza (talk) 04:17, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The Monumenta Boica is huge. It's also hard to tell quite what's going on in there as my Latin's pretty rusty. It's a reference to the possibility that there may be mentions of a family name in an enormous archive consisting of 54 volumes and 65 sub-volumes that would take a professional archivist weeks if not months to parse. Be my guest - it tells us a family name exists, not that it is in any way notable or, indeed, that anything that may be attributed to this source without some very precise pointers - is in any way verifiable within reason. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:56, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * If you want to complain about a source, fine. But don't write "no suggestion that there may be more sources" when the thing literally has citations to other sources. Why would you do that? Jahaza (talk) 05:16, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't see that footnote and never did. I'm not complaining - I'm pointing out that the source is not reasonably verifiable and there is no claim of notability to be inferred from its existence. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:30, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It is still my philosophy that 12-century historical families that are documented by one reliable source are notable. Should not judge on 12-century issue. Taung Tan (talk) 06:07, 3 November 2022 (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.