Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kulm Family Association

Google returns 5 hits for "Kulm Family Association". The website has three registered users, an empty FAQ, empty download section, and lots of other empty sections. Looks like vanity to me. Delete Chris 73 | Talk 12:01, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I forgot: If deleted, also remove the link in the Kulm disambiguity page -- Chris 73 | Talk 12:03, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I think the latter comment is overkill (or overdeletion). I don't care for having what is almost a stub article on the dab page itself&mdash;the paragraph beginning "An association of descendants of Alexander and Magdalena Kulm..."&mdash;and that should be removed. But since the page does exist anyway, I think it's reasonable to keep the entry nothing that Kulm can also be a surname. And having that much, it's reasonable to provide a link. This can be done in about one line:
 * Kulm - a surname of many German-Russian people who now live in the U.S. and Canada. See Kulm family association.
 * [[User:dpbsmith|dpbsmith (talk)]] 14:45, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC) P. S. I just took my own suggestion and edited Kulm accordingly. [[User:dpbsmith|dpbsmith (talk)]] 14:54, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Creator of the article left a message on my talk page: This is MORE than personal. It has to do with over 3000 people tracing their ancestry to the Kulm family. I wouldn't put it here if it wasn't important! Historical significance:  Chris 73 | Talk 12:46, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Kulm
 * Catherine the Great
 * Peter the Great
 * German-Russian
 * Russia
 * Stalin
 * Lenin
 * Poland
 * Bessarabia
 * Russian Steppes

Do not Delete, as stated above: this has extensive historical significance.

RE: Kulm.org, it is a new site done by volunteers; that is why it has several empty sections. Though there are extensive pictures in the gallery.  Jeremy99362 | Talk 6:16, 1 Aug 2004 (PDT)


 * Delete. Genealogy project, see point 17. Andrewa 13:54, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete with a polite reverence to What Wikipedia is not, case 17 (which Andrewa found faster). Rossami 14:14, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Delete as genealogy. Geogre 14:17, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * This might be historically significant for the Kulm family, but I don't see any evidence of notability. As established by others, Wikipedia is not a genealogy repository. Delete. --Ianb 14:25, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Delete, for reasons given by Andrewa and Rossami, and because the Kuln family as an entity is not sufficiently notable. [[User:dpbsmith|dpbsmith (talk)]] 14:45, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC) Further comments:
 * To preserve the work that was put into the article, allow for future reworking, and keep the material available within Wikipedia, the author of the article should create an account, assuming he has not done so already (I'm guessing he's Jeremy99362 Talk) and should move or copy this material to his user page or to a subpage thereof. If the author wants to do this and isn't sure how, I or others would be glad to help. This material is perfectly suitable for a user page and is not unreasonably long.
 * Kulm Family Association not the right title, as the association is surely not notable. There is an article about the Bach family and if the article survives VfD it should be moved to Kulm family and reworded accordingly. There's no point in doing this if the article is going to be deleted, though; this can wait until the Vfd outcome is known.
 * I find no evidence that the Kulm family as a family is notable. The 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica has only one entry under "Kulm" and it is about the town in Germany. The current Encyclopaedia Britannica appears to have no entries under Kulm at all. Wikipedia includes more and has a lower threshold of notability than the Britannica so this is not a fatal objection.
 * I would suggest that rather than trying to emphasize the notability of the family as a whole, the author should try to identify individual members of the family whose notability rises to encyclopedic standards and contribute articles about these individuals. [[User:dpbsmith|dpbsmith (talk)]] 14:45, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * General entry for a family I think would be at least three but preferably more notable persons who are closely related. see e.g. Bush family Darwin -- Wedgwood family, which reminds me I need to write Keynes family and Galton family. This, delete. Dunc_Harris|&#9786; 15:30, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. 3000 x personal = (still) personal. Elf-friend 19:21, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, this is not a genealogy website. Do NOT create a Kulm family article until and unless there are several notable articles on individual members of the family.  RickK 20:08, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete for reasons stated. This isn't a genealogy site. - Lucky 6.9 00:46, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. DJ Clayworth 18:06, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)