Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ochs-Sulzberger 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. Enigmamsg 23:42, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Ochs-Sulzberger family

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Appears to be copied in bulk from a genealogy website. As written, it contains no background on the family itself or its historical importance. Instead, it is a wide-ranging family tree, of which a few of the names are linked. The family connections could easily be incorporated in the individual articles. While an article on the history of the family would be useful, that bears no resemblance to the article that exists. See WP:NOTGENEALOGY. Wikiacc (¶) 23:00, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I take back my speculation about the use of a genealogy website. The rest remains. Wikiacc (¶) 23:24, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Wikiacc (¶) 23:04, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Wikiacc (¶) 23:09, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Wikiacc (¶) 23:09, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Wikiacc (¶) 23:09, 8 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Actually I used a genealogy format for this page, based on others I have seen and edited on Wikipedia. It is NOT copied from a genealogy website, so I think this nomination might be a mistake if that is the basis for the deletion. I cited multiple sources and the family is highly notable. I strongly believe this page is a valuable entry on Wikipedia and should not be deleted. -- BrillLyle (talk) 23:19, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Additionally, instead of suggesting a wholesale deletion of a ton of work, if there is a need for content to summarize the value, I would request an assumption of good faith (AGF) and tag the top of the article with the request for content. Deleting this entry seems a bit extreme and reflects a possible misunderstanding of the genealogical presentation of information and the value of the page. -- BrillLyle (talk) 23:21, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't know what article you were copying the format from, but I'm pretty certain it wasn't a FA or GA quality article. WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments don't wash here.  I'm sure the family is notable, at least through their ownership of the NYT.  I can see sources discussing them as a family, here for instance.  However, as it stands, the article is a massive failure of WP:NOTGENEALOGY.  I suggest completely removing the genealogical table and expanding the prose of the one-sentence stub that  remained.  If the article remains in its current state, then I am for deleting it. SpinningSpark 23:57, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * There are quite a few pages that list families in a genealogical way. I think this is an extreme overreaction and a weird hostility towards information. It also seems like you are the individual advocate for deleting a ton of work, and that it shouldn't be up to one editor to say what should be on this page or not. I don't understand the questioning of the notability of this family. It seems very bizarre. You are obviously going to do what you want to do here and are obviously not AGF in this instance, so I am powerless to stop you. But I want to go on record to say that I object. I think this is deletionism plain and simple. I disagree with your nomination and your assessment of the situation here. It is in my opinion against everything Wikipedia is valued for, and what you are doing is a weirdly hostile act that I'm not sure is cleanly motivated. But yeah by all means, feel free to work havoc on this page to "improve" the content that was created. -- BrillLyle (talk) 15:43, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * (after ec) You have a bad case of I didn't hear that. First of all, nobody has (so far) challenged the notability of the family. That is not the reason the article is up for deletion.  You repeatedly claim (without linking to any evidence) that this is similar to other articles.  Even if true, that is an invalid argument and you have shown no sign of having read the  linked guidelines (let me link them again for you: WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:NOTGENEALOGY) which explain why that argument is invalid and why the material doesn't belong.  It is not too late to save the page.  I advised you above what you need to do.  You appear not to have heard that either.
 * It is patently untrue that it is up to one editor to decide – anybody can take part in this discussion. You accuse me of not assuming good faith.  On the contrary, I have no doubt you created the page in good faith.  It is you who is not showing good faith by accusing me of not being "cleanly motivated". SpinningSpark</b> 16:09, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The Tree list template is used on many pages. See Tree list template
 * I do genealogy so maybe that's why this makes so much sense to me, but I am also Jewish and live in New York City. I do Jewish genealogy as well as other types of genealogy. All of the information on the page in question is cleanly presented and is valuable information. I think this deletion request is why there isn't MORE genealogy on Wikipedia, this type of reaction and the reasoning. I am not sure why this is not clear to you from what I have explained, but this action is a real disservice to Wikipedia. Again, I ask you to reconsider and re-evaluate this methodology. -- BrillLyle (talk) 15:51, 9 July 2018 (UTC)


 * The template is used on many pages, but most of them aren't for genealogies. Of the ones that are, they are mostly for royal dynasties where the majority of entries are notable individuals with their own article.  I'm not seeing any pages that consist almost entirely of a genealogy of mostly non-notables.  That is exactly the sort of thing that WP:NOTDIRECTORY says we shouldn't be including. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 16:39, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTGENEALOGY. The family may indeed be notable but this article does not demonstrate that notability as it's a context-less family tree of (mostly unlinked) names - exactly the sort of directory that Wikipedia is not supposed to include. If there are other articles that consist solely of a family tree like this, they should also be nominated for deletion. Ca2james (talk) 03:08, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Great. So instead of adding tags to improve pages with tons of content, you choose to delete?!? On what planet is this productive? I am seriously asking. It does not seem logical. -- BrillLyle (talk) 18:45, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * And this is the regular constant request that you stop following my edits, Ca2james. It's creepy and rude, and constitutes harassment. How about if you see my edits and just move on. It is unacceptable. -- BrillLyle (talk) 18:50, 10 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Stop falsely accusing me and try a little assuming good faith of me and others. You think that any content you create is sacrosanct and any changes to it are unproductive. You do not understand that there's more to Wikipedia than your content, that Wikipedia has standards for content and sourcing, or that editors who do take care of all that are doing as much for Wikipedia as you are. That's a serious answer. Ca2james (talk) 19:43, 10 July 2018 (UTC)


 * AGF? It's not false. It's actual fact, which you yourself admitted to doing, to following my edits page to page. It's documented in the page histories and you said it on at least one Talk page or AN/I board, so that's not a question. The issue is you refuse to stop. If I was more like you I would bring you up on charges via AN/I. But I'm not you. I am simply repeating my request to recuse yourself on any page I am working on, on any administrative issue that might come up directly related to me. You are stalking my edits. It is chronic. I would request you stop. I think that is reasonable.
 * This made me laugh. You're saying that I don't understand there's more to Wikipedia than content?!? I guess that's how you justify what you do on Wikipedia, eh? The fact is that I don't think the content that I create is sacrosanct. I am just trying to add actual content and curate the best citations possible. I do a ton of work that is really really hard and not appreciated. I think that it is a common theme that Wikipedia "editors" who almost entirely focus on admin and enforcing WIKI:Rulez and don't do the difficult task of actually contribute content tend to take deletionist approaches to editing out of fear or maybe just plain incompetence. It's working at cross-purposes, like here, yet again. There is always an opportunity to discuss and/or assist in improving the information on pages. I don't see you doing that in your editing. I only see you and your editor friends deleting content and fixating on minutae, running me off pages and generally attacking content. I'm happy to collaborate if editors are adding content, improving content, etc. But don't lecture me about understanding Wikipedia. This is a continual personal attack on me that you must enjoy on some level. It needs to stop. You need to recuse yourself when I am involved until you can prove you will be more neutral and constructive. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 08:02, 11 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NOTGENEALOGY - also WP:BLP also heavily discourages names of non-notable people being used in articles under the presumption of privacy. I have excised a number of the obvious ones, but there are probably some more left. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:26, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment The subject is possibly notable given the works listed in the Further reading section, but the version of the article nominated for deletion is TNT-iable.
 * I'd suggest that instead of arguing a case for "keep" here, you and other interested editors edit the article to make it a better fit for wikipedia. Take a look, for example, at the Kennedy family article. It's far from great, but the substantive lede and history sections, and mainly restricting the family tree to notable members (especially for recent/current generations) would be a good start. (I intend to re-evaluate and update my comment to keep/delete/draftify later in the week depending upon status of the article at the time). Abecedare (talk) 01:16, 11 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm more than happy to do that. I simply object here to the wholesale deletion of this information. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 08:02, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * delete per NOT. Jytdog (talk) 02:23, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Needs a section that describes in narrative form the way the editorship/publishing of the New York Times passed from family member to family member to family member.- Nunh-huh 17:59, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:NOTGENEALOGY. \\\Septrillion:- &#8237;  10 Eleventeen 18:14, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:NOTGENEALOGY fail. Not worth keeping without supporting context. Snowycats (talk) 03:35, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not a genealogy site. Felicia (talk) 21:17, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete NOTGENEALOGY, plus it is unclear this family, as a family and not as individuals who happen to be members of it, satisfies GNG. Agricolae (talk) 22:32, 15 July 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.