Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Van Leer

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 deleted as copyvio after being listed for a week on WP:CP. --Robth^Talk 16:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Van Leer

No encyclopedic notability to be seen. --Jestix 21:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete per CSD:A7 - no notablity is asserted. Thryduulf 22:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as only a few family members are even borderline notable, so this has no utility. --Dhartung | Talk 00:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• keep Wow if this isn't notable we need to do some serious deletion of kimo the local street fighter and really start to clean house with all the useless garbage on wikipedia. There is a lot more than few family members who are way over borderline notable. If you would please direct yourself to the family tree link. You will notice that even today students have to write essay's on Van Leer family members. One family member is even a former georgia tech president. Another was a member of the Jesse James gang. Another was in Cosmopolitan Magazine. Another was the founder of ATO frat house. This article needs to stay.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Blake911 (talk • contribs) . (a van leer familiy member)
• I would be inclined to not delete this article out of hand. Family articles like this raise some interesting questions:
  1. Can a family be notable when few or none of its members are notable? (I would say yes, just as a band can.)
  2. Is a family a good way to group people? (I would say sometimes. If a family fortune or business or hereditary title is the common thread.) That is not the case here, though. What is the connection between Hans Vollers and Johann Balthasar von Löhr? None, really.
  3. Could this article be replaced by a category? (Maybe some family articles can, but not this one.)

However, WP:NOT a geneology site, there is much material here unsourced and probably very difficult to source, and some that is openly speculative ("It is believed..." "Would probably have...", etc.). Nevertheless, all things considered, I would tend toward keeping the article. Herostratus 05:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• • The notability discussion aside, familiy articiles starting with a member of this familiy copying content from their homepage to wikipedia is a VERY wrong start for a proper article if you ask me, especially regarding NPOV --Jestix 06:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • What IMHO really speaks against a grouped familiy tree is, since one member is currently aggressibly adding person after person of this familiy to wikipedia, with seperate articles we have the wikipedia tools of AFD to determine person by person if he is notable or not. If there is a familiy tree I fear it will go down to any newborn baby to mementioned by that guy, and when we remove it by revert this will very likely result into revert wars. --Jestix 06:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep the name for disambiguation Almost any surname is non-exclusive so "Van Leer" is needed like we need Rothschild. (I'm thinking about maybe adding a short article on the Dutch charity, Bernard van Leer Foundation [1] which is active globally in child rights.) Any worthwhile family article, like Rothschild family (see the redirect too), is probably written after good encycopedia articles have been established on the individuals. The content of this article isn't enough yet for a decent "Van Leer family" article, but can it be improved? The enthusiasts ought to try to work first on worthwhile individual articles. The Georgia Tech guy looks OK to me as a start. Mereda 07:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikify — President of Georgia Tech 1944-1956 is established by this www.library.gatech.edu link. Who also makes the NC State University College of Engineering Time Line as Dean of Engineering.Bernard Van Leer foundation This website speaks for itself by showing Bernard Van Leer is more than noteworthy. Samuel Van Leer and many others seem to be more than noteworthy. I suggest keeping this because it's already more than noteworthy and other Wikipedia users will most likely contribute to this article.

Thordice 21:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Incendiary Delete Get rid of this vanity swill. Blake Van Leer wants his entire family on Wikipedia. I have family members that are actually of note on Wikipedia, not because I wrote an article on them, but becauser they actually are notable independent of my opinions. Simply because a single family member is noable, that doesn't mean the family name should be plastered on Wikipedia. If this is kept, I demand family geneology pages on both the Forrest and Dickens families. (I'm bewwing sarcastioc, please don't creat them or I'll delete them. Shazbot85^Talk 21:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I agree with Mereda's comments. I did click the redirect Mereda provided us with and the Rothchilds article is noteworthy. Perhaps someone can contribute more details.

Waargboom 17:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete I really wasn't sure about this one, although some of the members of the Van Leer family might have claim to Notabilty (such as the Former Ga Tech president), I don't think the Van Leers, as an entity, qualify. When I think of notable families I think of the Bushes, Kennedys, Rockefellers, etc. Maybe that's too high a standard, but the article and my (admitedly limited) research just don't seem to establish them as being notable as a whole. --- The Bethling^(Talk) 03:44, 15 September 2006 (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.