Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Counts Von Zimmermann

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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No consensus. Rx StrangeLove 06:15, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Counts Von Zimmermann

This is of minor genealogical interest. WP is not for material that's merely of genealogical interest, and this is unlikely to be of any interest to more than a few dozen people in the world. -- Hoary 03:50, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Clearly notable in the context of Maltese social history. It wouldn't be up for deletion if it was an English peerage (or would not be deleted in the unlikely event that it was) and the fact that it is Maltese shouldn't make a difference. This is one of many such articles and I can see no reason for it to be singled out in this way. CalJW 04:17, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Response I see nothing whatever in the article that is of social significance. What did these counts do? What was their effect on Malta? We don't learn anything of this. I too am unswayed by the fact that this is about Malta; I'd countenance an article on a family of some clearly expressed notability in Malta or anywhere else. Yes, this is one of a number of articles about "noble" Maltese families. I'm picking on this and Testaferrata because among the several that I have examined these are two whose subjects seem non-notable (other nobles have had some notability claimed for them), and because my time and effort are limited. (Analogously, I catch a few examples of blatant vandalism each day; I'd hope not to be accused of "picking on" those particular vandals.) -- Hoary 04:38, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I’d like to see this expanded per Hoary’s comments above. The article is pretty thin as it stands. ♠ DanMS 04:56, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable Count. Nobility does not imply nobility as shown in the deletion of the aricle of Dr. Charles Gauci and as explained in the current afd on Stephen Sant Fournier. Changes were done to a comment I placed on the talk page of Stephen Sant Fournier as Hoary said. Maltesedog 12:13, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Members of the nobility (of any country) are inherently notable. --Nicodemus75 13:58, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
  • They are? Really? How? (Well, I know they used to be, in the eyes of the stereotypical and sometimes even actual wives and daughters of American rail, meat-packing, and other "barons" of a century ago. But otherwise?) -- Hoary 14:07, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Because many, many people, from all around the world are interested in nobility. Nobility is notability. .... added by Vizjim at 15:38, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment , nobility is not always equals to notability each case should be seen in its own merits Maltesedog 17:23, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, notable topic. However, isn't the statement Information provided by Charles Said-Vassallo on the page something of a problem? Vizjim 15:38, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, It seems that Maltesedog and Hoary have no background on History and are picking on my work alone. Just view their logs alone. This is not fair and they should be BANNED. Their comments do not make sense nor are suitable for editing or placing any item for deletion. Its about time Wikipedia puts these two to rest. Tancarville 06:38, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Response: I for one am not picking on anybody's work alone; just see my log. If you'd like to have a user censured or banned, you might try an RfC rather than here. -- Hoary 01:52, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Response: I am not picking on anyone and anybody's work alone! I view afd's, and browse through articles mainly related to Malta and comment on what should be kept, modified, and deleted. I also put forward my contributions. Rest assured that most of your contributions are valid contributions and should be kept in Wikipedia. Maltesedog 17:23, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Counts and other nobility were highly notable during the period of their dominance in history. Highly notable in their relevant time period is more than notable enough for inclusion here today. Unfocused 15:40, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Titles of nobility are inherently notable (not to say that every individual that holds them is, though).--Pharos 04:05, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

keep please erasing this is not in the spirit of wikipedia Yuckfoo 05:26, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, wikipedia is not a genealogy database. --fvw* 06:07, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Delete The title itself never held any authority in Malta, as the HRE had no authority there between its creation in 1790 and its abolition in 1806, so it can't claim notability on that basis. The title is not recognized by the Committee of Privileges of the Maltese Nobility so it can't clain notability on that basis. The Association of Foreign Title Holders in Malta is basically just a modern geneology club formed in 1994, so membership there is not notable. The only basis I can see for the notablity of the title is in its creation in 1790 by either the dying Joseph II or the newly crowned Leopold II (a detail the article really should include if it is kept). However, with the 18th century seeing the creation of so many courtesy noble titles, I'd like to see some evidence that the title actually had some lands held in liege before I'm prepared to accept that the title is notable. That the first Count von Zimmermann was notable, I'll grant since he was able to secure at least a courtesy noble title from a major monarch. If evidence that the title was more than simply a courtesy title can be pointed to then I'll change my vote to keep. Caerwine 16:26, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep if only because of this remarkable man [1]. In general I think we should at least keep the generic articles for a Burkes Peerage title, if we're not having every holder of those titles. Rich Farmbrough 21:51, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Nobility does not imply notability. There are probably hundreds of thousands of counts, and there were millions in recorded history. Claim to notability has been contradicted by Caerwine. Martg76 22:18, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This article (along with a number of others by the same editor) appears to be original research. I also agree with the comments above regarding "nobility" not equalling "notability"; just because someone claims to have inherited a fairly meaningless title does not justify a place in an encyclopaedia. Also, by analogy, one could argue that there should be (say) an article for every doctor registered in the United States, regardless of individual merit. Silverhelm 01:10, 1 October 2005 (UTC).
• Delete Titles aren't inherently notable, and no reaon is given for the notability of this one. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:26, 2 October 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.