Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Sant Fournier
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 DELETE. On simple counting it's 5d-2k which I would not ordinarily write out an explanation for. However, in this case there has been much well-argued debate. The fact is, however, that nobody has been persuaded to shift their position as a result of it, and the deleteists are still sure of themselves even after the Unfocused-Hoary exchange (which I thought was quite an illuminating conversation). Tancarville, in my view, weakens his position by having to resort to the tourist trade for extraneous notability having not won much ground with the title alone. All of that taken together is enough to give the deleters their way. -Splashtalk 21:47, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Stephen Sant Fournier
Delete - a signed article on a person which is not notable and does not fall under the rules on Biographies of Wikipedia. Note: The man in question is an accountant with a degree in IT and not in accountancy. Maltesedog 17:14, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
- Undecided All sorts of issues with POV etc. Re notability - would the titles alone make him notable in modern or historical Malta? Dlyons493 19:28, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as WP is not the social register. -- Hoary 01:56, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
- Comment Following deletion of Charles Gauci, as far as I know there was concensus amongst users that unless notable for something else a listing in the Maltese Nobility page would be enough. Maltesedog 11:29, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks for that Maltesedog Dlyons493 Talk 21:38, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: Charles Gauci has arisen from the dead, as Dr Charles A Gauci. -- Hoary 04:20, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
- PS an admin has speedied the latter. -- Hoary 03:07, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
- The results of one other AfD cannot be presumed to represent a "consensus amongst users" other than perhaps a consensus among those few who found time to participate in the previous discussion. Unfocused 13:41, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
- Delete still POV issues. Both his titles are in Maltese Nobility and are Googleable but that's nn enough as per above. Dlyons493 Talk 21:38, 26 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. As far as I'm concerned, as long as the title is inherited the notability follows. I can wish the world was more egalitarian, but the notability of people like Paris Hilton convinces me that it never will be. Unfocused 15:49, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
- Response: That's an interesting point. From my limited knowledge of Paris Hilton, her surname and inherited wealth were essential to the formation of her celebrity. But whatever the methods used and however undeserved her celebrity may be, celebrity she has most certainly achieved. Google tells me that a search for "paris hilton" -hotel gets about 10.6 million hits. Even discounting a large majority as vacuous bot-bait ("the Paris Hilton tapes they never showed!!!" etc etc etc), that's a large number. Meanwhile, "stephen sant fournier" scores 95, and as far as I can see every single one of these is either from Wikipedia or copies thereof or some kind of social register. But is he better known as Steve? Er, hardly. Google offers just eight hits for "steve sant fournier". Should PH be noteworthy? Probably not. Is she noteworthy? Definitely. Is SSF noteworthy? No. -- Hoary 03:03, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
- My point wasn't about the relative fame levels of notability/notoriety, but instead that we don't get to choose who joins the "lucky sperm club". They are similar in that each is notable by virtue of being born to certain parents. Of course, PH later used the media to make herself more notable (and then even more so), but the fact is, she and SSF had a similar head start that 99.999% of the world doesn't get. Unfocused 03:51, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
- Sorry if I misunderstood your earlier remark. I'm not sure I fully understand the latter one, either. However, I believe I understand one part: that SSF and PH are similar in that each is notable by virtue of being born to certain parents. I'd say/guess that PH inherited an extremely minor degree of notability until she (or others) decided to exploit it. She has now indisputably achieved notability (of an particularly cheap and transient kind, perhaps, but notability all the same). I don't see that SSF is notable in any way, unless one is to suggest that anybody who can call himself "Count", etc., is thereby notable. (Moreover, the number of Google hits implies to me that there's virtually no interest in him.) If you take the latter position, then you open up WP to mostly genealogical articles on a vast number of people. I think that, say, the principals of grade schools (or those of whom verifiable info is available) are vastly more deserving of WP articles: these are people who are contributing to the world. (NB I've nothing against the fact that SSF is a count. On the strength of his verifiable position as managing director of a notable newspaper, some months ago I was arguing "keep" for the VfD'd article on some "noble" German gentleman. Sorry, I forget his name.) -- Hoary 04:26, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
- I suppose we'll continue to disagree. Parentage often equals notability: if Barbara and Jenna Bush were born to a truck driver and a Wal-Mart associate, there would be no article on them. I certainly wouldn't mind if everyone who can legitimately call themselves "Count" had an article here. It would certainly be interesting to compare their achievements and career paths with those who aren't born into peerage. Unfocused 05:40, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
- I think that B&JB too are unremarkable. However, (i) their pop is famous and SSF's isn't; (ii) they're famous and SSF isn't. (I hope I don't have to labor the point with numbers of Google hits, etc.) -- Hoary 14:42, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
- As I said, we'll continue to disagree. It's still a matter of parentage as B&JB haven't done anything noteworthy enough on their own to have an article. Who your parents are matters. Now I think you can agree that this is a question of degree that will have to be decided individually in discussions such as this. Unfocused 14:52, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
- I think that B&JB too are unremarkable. However, (i) their pop is famous and SSF's isn't; (ii) they're famous and SSF isn't. (I hope I don't have to labor the point with numbers of Google hits, etc.) -- Hoary 14:42, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
- I suppose we'll continue to disagree. Parentage often equals notability: if Barbara and Jenna Bush were born to a truck driver and a Wal-Mart associate, there would be no article on them. I certainly wouldn't mind if everyone who can legitimately call themselves "Count" had an article here. It would certainly be interesting to compare their achievements and career paths with those who aren't born into peerage. Unfocused 05:40, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
- Sorry if I misunderstood your earlier remark. I'm not sure I fully understand the latter one, either. However, I believe I understand one part: that SSF and PH are similar in that each is notable by virtue of being born to certain parents. I'd say/guess that PH inherited an extremely minor degree of notability until she (or others) decided to exploit it. She has now indisputably achieved notability (of an particularly cheap and transient kind, perhaps, but notability all the same). I don't see that SSF is notable in any way, unless one is to suggest that anybody who can call himself "Count", etc., is thereby notable. (Moreover, the number of Google hits implies to me that there's virtually no interest in him.) If you take the latter position, then you open up WP to mostly genealogical articles on a vast number of people. I think that, say, the principals of grade schools (or those of whom verifiable info is available) are vastly more deserving of WP articles: these are people who are contributing to the world. (NB I've nothing against the fact that SSF is a count. On the strength of his verifiable position as managing director of a notable newspaper, some months ago I was arguing "keep" for the VfD'd article on some "noble" German gentleman. Sorry, I forget his name.) -- Hoary 04:26, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
- My point wasn't about the relative fame levels of notability/notoriety, but instead that we don't get to choose who joins the "lucky sperm club". They are similar in that each is notable by virtue of being born to certain parents. Of course, PH later used the media to make herself more notable (and then even more so), but the fact is, she and SSF had a similar head start that 99.999% of the world doesn't get. Unfocused 03:51, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
- Response: That's an interesting point. From my limited knowledge of Paris Hilton, her surname and inherited wealth were essential to the formation of her celebrity. But whatever the methods used and however undeserved her celebrity may be, celebrity she has most certainly achieved. Google tells me that a search for "paris hilton" -hotel gets about 10.6 million hits. Even discounting a large majority as vacuous bot-bait ("the Paris Hilton tapes they never showed!!!" etc etc etc), that's a large number. Meanwhile, "stephen sant fournier" scores 95, and as far as I can see every single one of these is either from Wikipedia or copies thereof or some kind of social register. But is he better known as Steve? Er, hardly. Google offers just eight hits for "steve sant fournier". Should PH be noteworthy? Probably not. Is she noteworthy? Definitely. Is SSF noteworthy? No. -- Hoary 03:03, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. What's notable isn't verifiable and what's verifiable isn't notable. All these Maltese nobility articles are extremely problematic and should be flushed as original research. Quale 19:33, 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 (EST)
- Response Tancarville has said the same in AfD/Counts Von Zimmermann; see my response there. --
Hoary 03:07, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
-
- Same as above
- Delete, no evidence of notability given. --fvw* 06:05, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
- Comment, Evidence of notability can be found not only on web sites and www.maltesenobility.org but also on each year book of Malta which lists the nobility. Steve is also a recognisable artist whom rarely sells his works without a hassel. Steve displays his news works once a year, and let me say, people come from all corners of the world to take up his works. Must not only mean he is notable for his noble connections but for his passion for Maltese hertiage. Though most are blinded by the fact that this gentleman is titled. Tancarville 18:20, 28 September 2005 (EST)
- Comment, Tancerville, before placing the article for deletion I have placed a comment on the talk page, asking you to proof notability. As already stating nobility does not fall as a category in the Wikipedia polciies on biographies. Being a Maltese, I have never heard of his fame, however if there are other Maltese who know about his works and can provide more detail on him this should be done over here. The comment I have placed in the talk page was evidently removed by you. Maltesedog 17:44, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
- Response User:Maltesedog refer to your Userpage for my comment.Tancarville 06:43, 29 September 2005 (EST)
- Comment Its a pity that now we have Stephen Sant Fournier similiar to Charles Gauci close to deletion as both have contributed highly in the world of Nobility in and out of Malta. Stephen is not only notable but also a leader amongst the nobility leading them both out of the 19th century into the Modern times. Without Stephens' help, the Nobility in Malta would have been extinct in a matter of heritage in Malta. Both Stephen and Charles Gauci are leaders in the fight for restoring some cultural benefits to the Tourism for Malta as the nobility is considered a MAJOR interest to the Tourist trade and importantly keeping many employees in Malta in a job. Please rethink your decision, as this is of essence. Thank you.. Tancarville 06:48, 29 September 2005 (EST)
- Comment: You seem to imply that without the effort of these two people (of whom one has had article already deleted via AfD), the Maltese people and nation would have forgotten about Maltese "nobility". Quite aside from my own attitude toward inherited titles, this seems somewhat unbecoming; or anyway I hardly think it "aristocratic" to embark on a PR job on behalf of one's own "aristocracy". The tastefulness of their campaign aside, they are of course free to pursue it -- but I hope that WP is not being employed as part of it. Hoary 04:04, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. I'm far from a deletionist, especially concerning articles on people, but I just don't see the basis for including this. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:27, 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.
