Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Swedish noble families


 * 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   keep. Spartaz Humbug! 00:17, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

List of Swedish noble families

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Practically the definition of indiscriminate. There are no sources and no justification that this is any more encyclopedic than a phone book listing. Oren0 (talk) 07:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and clean up - The families entered at Riddarhuset are surely notable; I'm insufficiently knowledgeable about the Swedish situation specifically to be sure of more than that, but there is potential here for a set of non-indiscriminate criteria for selecting noble families for listing here. This desperately needs to be tabulated, though, so that the number (which I think can be sourced, and has meaning), the surname, the domain (if any), and the year of ennoblement can be searched and sorted. The list is probably too long as it stands, but it's not intrinsically indiscriminate or lacking in notability. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:58, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. This article doesn't cite reliable sources for the 2000+ entries making it impossible to verify the contents. (a geocities site doesn't count unless the owner can prove themselves to be a historian through OTRS). This sort of long lists is better served by using external links. - Mgm|(talk) 11:41, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Needs better organizing/structure but nothing inherently wrong with it. I've sometimes had occasion to refer to the Swedish article (which is a bit better). Haukur (talk) 12:25, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. If sourcing is the issue, that's easily fixed: the 9-volume Den introducerade svenska adelns ättartavlor is the standard work which is bound to include all of these. (It's even possible that the yearbook published by Riddarhuset has a list including extinct families, I don't know that.) So let's keep this about WP:IINFO. I realize that this is a little bit on the edge, but then this nobility was the Swedish equivalent of creating a British peer, and we obviously have lists of those. If kept, I certainly agree with Alex that it should be tabulated and expanded (the name of the man first ennobled would also be useful in such a table). If it's too long, the way to go is to divide it up by rank, any other cut would be completely arbitrary. -- Jao (talk) 12:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and source. The list is correct. If you are makeing it shorter you will leave out noble families. That is offending. Sólyomszem (talk) 14:50, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - Whilst I agree with your !vote, WP:N is our criterion for inclusion, not whether or not we offend an unknown Swedish knightly family. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Thank you. But they are not unknown Swedish families, if they are on the Riddarhusets list. They are rather famous in Sweden. The interesting is about Swedish family names in Sweden is that most family names are -son names, Svenson, Johnson, Pettersson, Persson. Very few people have different or unusual names (not –son names), like the names in the list. These names are a piece of Swedish culture history.22:00, 8 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sólyomszem (talk • contribs)


 * Keep but break out the chain-saw. Many of these bloodlines have probably died out or gone into obscurity.  Without any other history written about them on wikipedia, all the redlinks add up to an ugly laundry list.  Perhaps narrowing the list down to the families notable enough to have an article on here (and as more articles are created they can be readded) would be the best way to trim this article.  Themfromspace (talk) 16:25, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Unconventional keep I'd say categorize per nom if en.wiki didn't have a natural bias against non-English topics and actually had articles instead of redlinks. The Swedish wikipedia has much less redlinks, so I think theer is enough notability to create articles -> categorize them -> get rid of this list. Until then, keep this list. – sgeureka t•c 16:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Categorizing seems reasonable for the small percentage of items with articles. But an unsourced list of thousands of redlinks?  What is the encyclopedic value? It's also worth noting that seemingly most of the blue links are to dab pages and not to articles about these families. Oren0 (talk) 18:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep This is a list of notable families.  It needs imrpvement, not deletion. Edward321 (talk) 02:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - List only notable families and improve it if it is underdeveloped, do not delete it.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 20:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - passes WP:LIST, basic idea is fine, but cut out the Families of the untitled nobility (adliga ätter) - roughly equivalent to Baronets and such. Bearian (talk) 01:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - I agree with Bearian's suggestion. That's the potentially indiscriminate bit of the list, so it should go. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:52, 10 December 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.