Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Armorial Register Limited


 * 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. Secret account 19:56, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

The Armorial Register Limited

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This company is not notable publisher of few books, links are self-published. Yopie (talk) 22:05, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * This is a company registered in Scotland and has a grant of arms from Lord Lyon. Most companies do not qualify. In Scotland there is NO HIGHER notability. If Yopie knows as much about heraldry as he pretends to, he would know this. This is nothing more than a petulant attack after his last two attacks did not work. His idea of improving articles is to delete them. He attaches notices, saying that the article needs to be improved, but does nothing to improve them or give useful advice as to how it is to be done. This is the worst kind of editing on Wikipedia and amounts to bullying. Kiltpin (talk) 22:41, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * , please assume good faith or at the very least, do not make personal attacks on an AfD page. I understand that you feel strongly about this publisher, but you should limit your discussion on ways to prove notability for the company. The reason for this is that even if you feel justified in what you're saying, making statements like this can actually work against you because people coming in will see this as a personal attack. If you do think that there is just cause for saying that Yopie is genuinely unhelpful, it would be best to bring that up at WP:ANI or at WP:THIRDOPINION. It's just that making statements like that can very frequently backfire, as it will make incoming editors go immediately on the defensive because they will worry that you will say similar things about them if they do not agree with you. Now that aside, saying that the company has their own personal coat of arms does help, but I'd also suggest looking for coverage about the company in reliable sources. (You'd also have to back up that the company has received a grant of arms, BTW.) I will be the first to admit that I'm not as familiar with heraldry as others would be, but I've seen evidence at other AfDs that having a coat of arms isn't enough in and of itself to warrant someone having an article. (See here, here, here for some examples of coats of arms that have been deleted or otherwise merged to other articles.) Basically, I think that it would be best to back up notability by looking for secondary, independent, reliable sources to show notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   05:00, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you Tokyogirl79. There was some back-up to the claim that they were granted arms, with links - until Yopie deleted them. You can see how I have dificulty assuming good faith when it looks as if the article is being setup to fail. That having been said, notability existed before the internet, before newspapers and magazines, before electricity. In fact people, places and organisations have been notable since the dawn of time. I have great difficulty in understanding the concept that only internet recognition is acceptable. The sphere of chivalry and coats of arms is a very niche market. The service that the Armorial Register provides is on a par to house or car insurance - providing a safety net in the event of ursurpation. We all have various insurances in our lives, but how many of us write articles about it in learned journals. But people will tweet, or facebook, or tumbler, or blog about the fact that they are now registered. But none of these are acceptable. I strikes me that the bar on notability is being set higher every year. If we were to grade existing articles by today's standards, how many would have to be deleted? If you want me to, I can quote dozens. Should we start a cull? I am going to re-insert the references and links that were deleted and hope that will suffice. Kiltpin (talk) 09:45, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The only problem with WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is that unfortunately there are a large amount of articles on Wikipedia that previously passed notability guidelines but would now fail those same guidelines because of the rules being updated to become more strict. It's not something I entirely agree with personally, as it makes it harder for me to add articles for topics that are extremely popular and/or known, yet haven't gained the coverage necessary to pass GNG (or the specific guideline). Basically, the guidelines got more strict in general because of various obviously non-notable topics (this one in particular is responsible for the stricter book guidelines) arguing for inclusion based upon previous guidelines. It's a shame that it happened, but it was sort of out of necessity. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   09:54, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

It is completely obvious that the main author of the article is one of the founders of said company. The often mentioned fact that Lord Lyon has granted this company a Coat of Arms shan't be overrated. Additionally, as the aforementioned main author of the article knows quite exactly, not all grants and sentences of Lord Lyon remain unchallenged. And not always the grantee will be happy in the end. —— Enough said: I vote for delete. SR-7v (talk) 18:19, 1 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 00:39, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 00:39, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 00:39, 29 October 2014 (UTC)


 * If I understand correctly, this company published volume 1 of Burke's Peerage & Gentry International Register of Arms. Without prejudice to the question of notability, I suggest this page is a plausible redirect to Burke's Peerage, in which case it will not be elligible for deletion. James500 (talk) 20:33, 1 November 2014 (UTC)


 * @James500, unfortunately, the background of the edition of that particular work is somehow unclear, and by all means the things here in question may have not really so much to do with the REAL Burke's; apparently the "Armorial Register" company('s preceding firm) was merely renter of the 'Burke's "company name"' for a time (no Scottish/English legal dictionary at hand but I guess you understand what I want to express), see viz.: http://scotstitlesexposed.wordpress.com/2011/02/22/real-scots-internet-trolls-exposed/ —— there: the 2nd response "Auld Chiel says"; more details here: http://rec.heraldry.narkive.com/YgXYBV7f/armorial-register-puzzles SR-7v (talk) 21:52, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 02:36, 5 November 2014 (UTC)




 * I daresay Kiltpin is trying to get cute with me! (Apologise the Americanism, James500 and, if you find I botched this phrase, Northamerica1000.) In deed, I am a bit annoyed that Kiltpin is not only trying to tell Tokyogirl79 quite a lot untruth regarding his very own role here, and his actual role in the world of Scottish heraldry & "clan council"-wise, but he's also trying, constantly, to slander that I would be a "sock puppet" (of Yopie, or of Kittybrewster), or that I would be even a "troll". — Really, Kiltpin is not just one "skeptical of anthropogenic global warming", but one person of remarkably "classy" methods. Ab Initio, belter! SR-7v (talk) 23:32, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Guys, let's calm down here. I think that right now we need to focus on one thing: what we can do to improve the article and salvage it. I would recommend that all other disputes take place on the article's talk page or preferentially at WP:DRN. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   05:08, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Dear Tokyogirl79, thank you for your reaction. Of course, I'm endorsing your proposal — but there is a basic prerequisite: First of all, the aforementioned "Armorial Register" shall have removed all their self-styled "noblemen". To be more precise, I mean: Depending on whether the non-British "noblemen" who cannot be found in any notable publication ("Libro D'Oro", or "Genealogisches Handbuch des Adels", e.g.) have been removed, one can talk about notability of the company in question. But definitely not before that had happened. SR-7v (talk) 12:24, 6 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 02:41, 13 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. Fabricated notability through refs that aren't reliable. Edit warring appears to have continued into this AFD. Few policy based comments in the discussion above. Szzuk (talk) 22:14, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I looked for third-party coverage after declining the speedy, and again tonight. "Armorial" and "Register" aren't very discriminatory search terms in the context of heraldry, though, and I wasn't able to find anything I thought usable.  Delete. &mdash;Cryptic 00:51, 22 November 2014 (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.