Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard 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 Speedy Deleted - Author Requested deletion --User:Arnzy (talk • contribs) 11:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Richard Family
This was originally put up for a speedy but there were objections so it's here. It reads too much like a geneaological record. And frankly, outside of the Napoleon connection, I don't see notability here. Woohookitty(meow) 11:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Family History OR. 205.157.110.11 11:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:V as well as a host of other arguments. WilyD 13:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not a genealogical index. Agent 86 17:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, this is all non-notable (being related to someone famous is not notable, this is actually quite common). --Dhartung | Talk 20:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm pretty sure I tagged this db-group... Ryūlóng 22:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Author has requested deletion. Ryūlóng 22:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I am the author and I have deleted my page on my own. You people are morons if you think being related to Napoleon is "common". There are only three families in the world who have that relation. I published this article to make knowlage avalible on an influental family that is not widely known. It holds a place in world history. Anyway you can stop voting of whatever your doing here because I have removed this article so go ahead and further delete it if you want I'll take my information somewere were people care about history.Vaio12 22:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Do not take offense. We just have rules as to what's notable or includable. We are not a collection of indiscriminate information. The problem with including a family like this is, as it has been said already, many are related to famous people. Almost everyone is related to someone famous. We can't include all of them. --Woohookitty(meow) 01:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You have misinterprited the focus of my article. I didnt right about this family because they are related to someone " famous". I wrote about them becaues they are one of the wealthiest families in the world and one of the most powerful in this nation. Just recently they have been emerging into the society world and I thought it was a point of interest in who they are and were they come from. Yes they have relation to a historical figure but they also weald great influence in new england and around the country despite being relitivly unheard of on a large scale. That was the focus of my article. Just as you have pages here about the Vanderbilts, Rockefellers, Kennedys and other less wealthy but more well known families. I was tring to ad to the knowlage of these " Dynasty " families that are so secretive and isolated in this country. Vaio12 01:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * OK. Well. I'm going to restore the vote on the page. There is no reason to end it. You might persuade people to keep the article. You never know. --Woohookitty(meow) 01:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No vote as the author I request that my article be deleted imediatly.Vaio12 01:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll delete it. I really wish you'd reconsider leaving though. But. If you can't accept something like this, then maybe this isn't the place for you. Have to roll with the punches here. --Woohookitty(meow) 03:58, 31 August 2006 (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.