Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Galvin Family, the

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 of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:43, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Galvin Family, the

No indication why this family is notable, seems to be just a vanity page StoatBringer 12:45, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. PJM 12:56, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. Looks like it was taken from one of those bogus "buy your family shield" kiosks. Coat of arms belonged to an individual, not a family. Ifnord 15:15, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Preserve The Galvin family used to be rulers of southern provinces of Ireland, such as Dungarvan and Youghal. Also, a sect of the Galvin Family are the founders of the communications giant Motorola. Also, the Galvin's are high ranking officials in the American health system, one being Chief of Physiotheraphy for the AHA. A member of the Galvin family was in the English national football team in the early 1900s. Daniel Galvin, world renowned hairdress, is 'World Hair Colourist of the Year' and is a powerful force in fashion from London, and ever increasingly, the world. Another thing of 'notable' worth is that a Galvin was the very first soldier to paratroop into Holland after Operation Market Garden was commenced.

Also, I think there is no information here that would serve as 'vanity'. As the site says itself "Many visitors come to this site to acquire knowledge. The second reason is to share knowledge." I am merely sharing knowledge, and now people may, if desired, which I'm sure people will desire, to read the article. It is not MY article, it is a article for other Galvin's around the world, of which there are many, and anyone else for that matter to find more on there background and be educated in its long and notable History.

As well as this, I had not finished this article and I did intend to add 'notable's' and such like.

As for calling the family shield bogus, I have official documentation that says otherwise, and dozens of NON PROFIT sites also show the coat of arms. It is a part of FAMILY history, not for INDIVIDUAL profit

Alexius05 15:20, 29 November 2005

• Comment. If the article will be deveoped further, state something on the talk page right away. Also, get a stub entry in place and maybe put a bullet list of notable information. Probably should have been built in a sandbox before posting. --StuffOfInterest 16:50, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. If the rulers were notable, there should be individual articles about them. -- Kjkolb 21:39, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Kjkolb hit the nail on the head. HackJandy 22:17, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment If the article is to be expanded with genuine notable information, then (as the submitter) I agree it could be kept. --StoatBringer 23:53, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I've had a good think about this. There are notable families, such as the Kennedy family. I might even accept this article if it were about the ancestral rulers in Ireland (though I would imagine Galvin clan might be a better article title in that case). But it's stretching the definition of "family" too far to claim that everyone with the same surname is part of a single family that is per se encyclopedic because some of its members are. Any individual Galvins who are notable should have their own article, as some of them do. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 12:04, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment The word family can and does mean 'A group of persons sharing common ancestry.' or 'Lineage' so actually the phraseology is correct. I have also expanded this article to include the notables, or the 'distinguised lineage'. As for the Notables, they are all proper and correct, and worthy of being notable. As 'notable' means 'Worthy of note or notice' and for those looking upon on FAMILY ancestory, they are notables, or for those just browsing Wikipedia in general. So, the arguements that this is vanity is incorrect, as it serves no egotistical purpose, but a insightful one. And if you look up to the bit I posted earlier as to what Wikipedia is about, some of you seem to have forgotten, as it is there help people "accquire knowledge" and thats what this article does. Not to serve as a vanity article, as vanity is pride in ones own accomplishments, and the accomplishments of Galvin ancestors are not my accomplishments, but theirs. Also, it does now contain notables and the phraseology within the article is perfectly correct and proper. EDITED Alexius05 12:25, 1 December 2005
• Comment Considering every 'delete' comment here has been totally proved worthless and idiotic, I think it's been about time we close this discussion. Yes. unsigned comment by Alexius05

As stated on Wikipedia:Deletion policy, in the normal course of things this discussion should last five days, and it will be down to the administrator who closes the debate to decide on the worth or otherwise of the arguments here. "Vanity" - only mentioned as a reason for deletion by one person - is sometimes used as shorthand for "articles in which someone has a personal stake", such as someone writing about their own website, company, family, etc. And the fact that you had earlier created a (speedy deleted) article on Alex galvin probably didn't help matters. Had you actually bothered to engage with people rather than dismissing them as "idiotic", you might have got further (I nearly voted to keep this). --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 16:05, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - as has been said, if there are notable members of this family, create articles about individuals. Barneyboo (Talk) 16:09, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - to the closing admin, please note that there is also an unsigned comment on the talk page. OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 17:23, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment to OpenToppedBus. I sincerely apologise, however, the sheer number of lamentable comments have aggravated me as all comments have been responded to and though they may have been useful, they are now outdated(referring to the comments such as StoatBringers) or are and were incorrect (such as Ifnords). As for the call for personal family member pages, from a variety of you, do you really think I'm going to start upon them when I get a veto upon the creatin of this page (designed to be the root of the member pages). The idea seems almost hypocritical at this moment in time. Also, despite this, there are already several notable pages linking the Galvin name, links which are on the page. Alexius05 13:22 3rd December, 2005.

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.