Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Van Tuyl


 * 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   no consensus. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 06:04, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Van Tuyl

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Nothing to indicate this family is particularly notable. Entire article based on creator's own book, effectively self-published (Anundson Publishing is a vanity publisher for genealogists). No member of the family appears notable such that they need this level of family history to place them in context. At a minimum, this appears to be a case of using Wikipedia as a web host, at its worst, as a pointer to the author's book. Agricolae (talk) 16:44, 13 September 2013 (UTC) Additional note: there are issues of WP:OWN involved as well, the creator objecting to changes to "My Wikipedia Page" and calling it "my article". Agricolae (talk) 17:00, 13 September 2013 (UTC)


 * This article is based on exhaustive historical research published in book form in 1996 under the title "A Van Tuyl Chronicle - 650 Years in the History of a Dutch-American Family". In April, 1997, the New York Genealogical and Biographical Record reviewed this book, stating "This is an extraordinary work, and is highly recommended." All of the claims made in this book, as well as the Wikipedia article are independently verifiable per exhaustive footnote references cited.


 * The Van Tuyl family played an important part in the early history of New York, as well as the home country of Gelderland.

for this reason, it is "notable" per Wikipedia standards. The article is well within Wikipedia guidelines.


 * The Wikipedia article makes this historical information available to the browsing public, several hundred of whom read this article in the past month alone. The article has enjoyed continuous public interest since it was first posted in 2009. There is no legitimate case for removing this article. Rory Van Tuyl (talk) 17:50, 13 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment The publisher of the book in question is "R.L. Van Tuyl, distributor". This clearly fails WP:SPS and should not be used as a source. Rory Van Tuyl added text in April 2012 promoting a "Van Tuyl DNA Project" which said " Anyone with a suspected male-line association with the Van Tuyl family is welcome to join the Van Tuyl DNA Project." When this was removed this week replaced it 3 times. I hope this isn't Rory Van Tuyl logged out. Dougweller (talk) 18:28, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I would need to be convinced otherwise, as the timing of the complaint for 'Vandalizing My Wikipedia Page' coming from Rory and the reversions from 76.103.212.48 seem too closely linked to be coincidence and not either the same editor logged out or else a meat-puppet. When the page was originally created, a similar pattern of editing took place and all three, the two IPs and Rory, are being used as SPAs. Agricolae (talk) 00:14, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Reply to Comment The book was published in 1996 and sold out completely that year. It is no longer available for distribution.

this was not a commercial plug, but rather a reference to the best - and most authoritatively researched - book on the topic. I cannot see how using this is in any way commercial. Rory Van Tuyl (talk) 19:04, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The commercial stuff was promoting the The Van Tuyl DNA Project' with this edit that you added last year and that someone editing from an IP address has been trying to keep in the article. Dougweller (talk) 20:32, 13 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Rory, the problem is not that this is commercial, but rather that this is self-published and thus fails our standards of reliable sourcing from impartial third parties. An edit, article or editor need not be for-profit to be promotional. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;  Talk  19:58, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:45, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:45, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:46, 14 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment Note that the original author has replaced the references to his own book with primary sources. Than means it is now a WP:NOR/WP:PRIMARY violation rather than a WP:SPS/WP:RS/WP:COI violation. Agricolae (talk) 03:40, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete No evidence of notability that I can find, self-published or primary sources. Dougweller (talk) 07:00, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment -- This is an interesting work of family history, based on a self-published book, which I have not seen. If that book properly cites its sources AND the information taken from them is accurately reported, then that book is based on WP:RS, and is itself WP:RS, even though self-published.  However, it will be better that the original sources are cited directly, as that avoids the question of whether the book is WP:RS.  Almost all history is ultiamtely based on Primary sources: some are published; some are not.  The WP concept involved in WP:OR is in my view designed to exclude invention from the author's own head.  History based on Primary Sources is by its nature based on the most reliable sources.  Sometimes it is necessary to compare one source with another, to eliminate bias, but that is the nature of hisotry.  My more fundamental question is whether the role played by members of the family either in the history of Gelderland or of New York is sufficient to make the family notable.  I am a historian, but not familiar with the detailed history of either.  However, I am far from convinced that there are more than a very few people of the surname who are notable.  I think the editor would be well advised to think which of the family were notable and to write WP articles on them individually.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:50, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Idon;t really know what is meant by a family being "particularly notable", and in any case, the criterion for WP is just plain "notable". There's enough information about all traditional european noble families to justify such articles. I would discourage making articles about all the individuals, but about some of them this could be possible, with enough investigation into sources, for they were a major patroon family in colonial NY State. .  DGG ( talk ) 20:44, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You are over-parsing the language. Not particularly notable = not all that notable = not really notable at all.  Nobody whose surname isn't Van Tuyl seems to have noticed that this family even exists.  A family that passes so far under the radar is not notable, however noble.  This is, in effect, a vanity page for a family historian. Agricolae (talk) 21:08, 21 September 2013 (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.