637:
best citations possible. I do a ton of work that is really really hard and not appreciated. I think that it is a common theme that
Knowledge (XXG) "editors" who almost entirely focus on admin and enforcing WIKI:Rulez and don't do the difficult task of actually contribute content tend to take deletionist approaches to editing out of fear or maybe just plain incompetence. It's working at cross-purposes, like here, yet again. There is always an opportunity to discuss and/or assist in improving the information on pages. I don't see you doing that in your editing. I only see you and your editor friends deleting content and fixating on minutae, running me off pages and generally attacking content. I'm happy to collaborate if editors are adding content, improving content, etc. But don't lecture me about understanding Knowledge (XXG). This is a continual personal attack on me that you must enjoy on some level. It needs to stop. You need to recuse yourself when I am involved until you can prove you will be more neutral and constructive. -- Erika aka
420:
this page or not. I don't understand the questioning of the notability of this family. It seems very bizarre. You are obviously going to do what you want to do here and are obviously not AGF in this instance, so I am powerless to stop you. But I want to go on record to say that I object. I think this is deletionism plain and simple. I disagree with your nomination and your assessment of the situation here. It is in my opinion against everything
Knowledge (XXG) is valued for, and what you are doing is a weirdly hostile act that I'm not sure is cleanly motivated. But yeah by all means, feel free to work havoc on this page to "improve" the content that was created. --
438:. First of all, nobody has (so far) challenged the notability of the family. That is not the reason the article is up for deletion. You repeatedly claim (without linking to any evidence) that this is similar to other articles. Even if true, that is an invalid argument and you have shown no sign of having read the linked guidelines (let me link them again for you:
547:. The family may indeed be notable but this article does not demonstrate that notability as it's a context-less family tree of (mostly unlinked) names - exactly the sort of directory that Knowledge (XXG) is not supposed to include. If there are other articles that consist solely of a family tree like this, they should also be nominated for deletion.
598:
Stop falsely accusing me and try a little assuming good faith of me and others. You think that any content you create is sacrosanct and any changes to it are unproductive. You do not understand that there's more to
Knowledge (XXG) than your content, that Knowledge (XXG) has standards for content and
515:
is used on many pages, but most of them aren't for genealogies. Of the ones that are, they are mostly for royal dynasties where the majority of entries are notable individuals with their own article. I'm not seeing any pages that consist almost entirely of a genealogy of mostly non-notables. That
486:
I do genealogy so maybe that's why this makes so much sense to me, but I am also Jewish and live in New York City. I do Jewish genealogy as well as other types of genealogy. All of the information on the page in question is cleanly presented and is valuable information. I think this deletion request
636:
This made me laugh. You're saying that I don't understand there's more to
Knowledge (XXG) than content?!? I guess that's how you justify what you do on Knowledge (XXG), eh? The fact is that I don't think the content that I create is sacrosanct. I am just trying to add actual content and curate the
419:
There are quite a few pages that list families in a genealogical way. I think this is an extreme overreaction and a weird hostility towards information. It also seems like you are the individual advocate for deleting a ton of work, and that it shouldn't be up to one editor to say what should be on
633:
bring you up on charges via AN/I. But I'm not you. I am simply repeating my request to recuse yourself on any page I am working on, on any administrative issue that might come up directly related to me. You are stalking my edits. It is chronic. I would request you stop. I think that is reasonable.
632:
AGF? It's not false. It's actual fact, which you yourself admitted to doing, to following my edits page to page. It's documented in the page histories and you said it on at least one Talk page or AN/I board, so that's not a question. The issue is you refuse to stop. If I was more like you I would
357:
Actually I used a genealogy format for this page, based on others I have seen and edited on
Knowledge (XXG). It is NOT copied from a genealogy website, so I think this nomination might be a mistake if that is the basis for the deletion. I cited multiple sources and the family is highly notable. I
237:
As written, it contains no background on the family itself or its historical importance. Instead, it is a wide-ranging family tree, of which a few of the names are linked. The family connections could easily be incorporated in the individual articles. While an article on the history of the family
372:
Additionally, instead of suggesting a wholesale deletion of a ton of work, if there is a need for content to summarize the value, I would request an assumption of good faith (AGF) and tag the top of the article with the request for content. Deleting this entry seems a bit extreme and reflects a
459:
It is patently untrue that it is up to one editor to decide – anybody can take part in this discussion. You accuse me of not assuming good faith. On the contrary, I have no doubt you created the page in good faith. It is you who is not showing good faith by accusing me of not being "cleanly
487:
is why there isn't MORE genealogy on
Knowledge (XXG), this type of reaction and the reasoning. I am not sure why this is not clear to you from what I have explained, but this action is a real disservice to Knowledge (XXG). Again, I ask you to reconsider and re-evaluate this methodology. --
203:
575:
And this is the regular constant request that you stop following my edits, Ca2james. It's creepy and rude, and constitutes harassment. How about if you see my edits and just move on. It is unacceptable. --
446:) which explain why that argument is invalid and why the material doesn't belong. It is not too late to save the page. I advised you above what you need to do. You appear not to have heard that either.
715:
article. It's far from great, but the substantive lede and history sections, and mainly restricting the family tree to notable members (especially for recent/current generations) would be a good start.
670:
also heavily discourages names of non-notable people being used in articles under the presumption of privacy. I have excised a number of the obvious ones, but there are probably some more left.
317:
561:
Great. So instead of adding tags to improve pages with tons of content, you choose to delete?!? On what planet is this productive? I am seriously asking. It does not seem logical. --
711:
I'd suggest that instead of arguing a case for "keep" here, you and other interested editors edit the article to make it a better fit for wikipedia. Take a look, for example, at the
399:. I suggest completely removing the genealogical table and expanding the prose of the one-sentence stub that remained. If the article remains in its current state, then I am for
197:
297:
277:
337:
156:
88:
103:
163:
391:
arguments don't wash here. I'm sure the family is notable, at least through their ownership of the NYT. I can see sources discussing them as a family,
129:
124:
133:
116:
718:(I intend to re-evaluate and update my comment to keep/delete/draftify later in the week depending upon status of the article at the time)
218:
83:
76:
17:
185:
599:
sourcing, or that editors who do take care of all that are doing as much for
Knowledge (XXG) as you are. That's a serious answer.
856:
NOTGENEALOGY, plus it is unclear this family, as a family and not as individuals who happen to be members of it, satisfies GNG.
97:
93:
387:
I don't know what article you were copying the format from, but I'm pretty certain it wasn't a FA or GA quality article.
179:
882:
40:
865:
848:
830:
810:
784:
769:
752:
729:
679:
646:
608:
585:
570:
556:
531:
496:
471:
429:
414:
382:
367:
349:
329:
309:
289:
268:
251:
58:
175:
743:
I'm more than happy to do that. I simply object here to the wholesale deletion of this information. -- Erika aka
120:
838:
818:
792:
663:
544:
517:
443:
396:
239:
225:
688:
675:
526:
466:
409:
112:
64:
439:
388:
878:
803:
373:
possible misunderstanding of the genealogical presentation of information and the value of the page. --
36:
845:
191:
861:
826:
748:
725:
642:
581:
566:
492:
425:
378:
363:
211:
671:
604:
552:
521:
461:
404:
392:
358:
strongly believe this page is a valuable entry on
Knowledge (XXG) and should not be deleted. --
345:
325:
305:
285:
264:
247:
72:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
877:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
435:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
796:
765:
696:
667:
842:
774:
Needs a section that describes in narrative form the way the editorship/publishing of the
857:
822:
744:
738:
721:
712:
706:
638:
577:
562:
488:
421:
374:
359:
53:
780:
627:
600:
548:
341:
321:
301:
281:
260:
259:
I take back my speculation about the use of a genealogy website. The rest remains.
243:
150:
761:
238:
would be useful, that bears no resemblance to the article that exists. See
873:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
778:
passed from family member to family member to family member.-
687:
The subject is possibly notable given the works listed in the
395:. However, as it stands, the article is a massive failure of
692:
480:
146:
142:
138:
235:
Appears to be copied in bulk from a genealogy website.
210:
821:
fail. Not worth keeping without supporting context.
318:
224:
478:The Tree list template is used on many pages. See
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
885:). No further edits should be made to this page.
336:Note: This discussion has been included in the
316:Note: This discussion has been included in the
296:Note: This discussion has been included in the
276:Note: This discussion has been included in the
298:list of Journalism-related deletion discussions
278:list of News media-related deletion discussions
693:version of the article nominated for deletion
338:list of New York-related deletion discussions
8:
104:Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
335:
315:
295:
275:
839:Knowledge (XXG) is not a genealogy site
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
516:is exactly the sort of thing that
434:(after ec) You have a bad case of
24:
520:says we shouldn't be including.
89:Introduction to deletion process
1:
672:Only in death does duty end
79:(AfD)? Read these primers!
902:
866:22:32, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
849:21:17, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
831:03:35, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
811:18:14, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
785:17:59, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
770:02:23, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
753:08:02, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
730:01:16, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
680:23:26, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
647:08:02, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
609:19:43, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
586:18:50, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
571:18:45, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
557:03:08, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
59:23:42, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
875:Please do not modify it.
532:16:39, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
497:15:51, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
472:16:09, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
430:15:43, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
415:23:57, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
383:23:21, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
368:23:19, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
350:23:09, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
330:23:09, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
310:23:09, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
290:23:04, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
269:23:24, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
252:23:00, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
32:Please do not modify it.
689:Further reading section
113:Ochs-Sulzberger family
65:Ochs-Sulzberger family
77:Articles for deletion
795:. \\\Septrillion:-
481:Tree list template
436:I didn't hear that
393:here for instance
352:
332:
312:
292:
94:Guide to deletion
84:How to contribute
893:
806:
799:
783:
742:
719:
710:
631:
229:
228:
214:
166:
154:
136:
74:
34:
901:
900:
896:
895:
894:
892:
891:
890:
889:
883:deletion review
819:WP:NOTGENEALOGY
804:
797:
793:WP:NOTGENEALOGY
779:
736:
717:
704:
664:WP:NOTGENEALOGY
625:
545:WP:NOTGENEALOGY
518:WP:NOTDIRECTORY
444:WP:NOTGENEALOGY
397:WP:NOTGENEALOGY
240:WP:NOTGENEALOGY
171:
162:
127:
111:
108:
71:
68:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
899:
897:
888:
887:
869:
868:
851:
833:
813:
787:
776:New York Times
772:
755:
733:
732:
713:Kennedy family
701:
700:
682:
656:
655:
654:
653:
652:
651:
650:
649:
634:
616:
615:
614:
613:
612:
611:
591:
590:
589:
588:
573:
538:
537:
536:
535:
534:
504:
503:
502:
501:
500:
499:
484:
475:
474:
452:
451:
450:
449:
448:
447:
385:
370:
354:
353:
333:
313:
293:
273:
272:
271:
232:
231:
168:
107:
106:
101:
91:
86:
69:
67:
62:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
898:
886:
884:
880:
876:
871:
870:
867:
863:
859:
855:
852:
850:
847:
844:
840:
837:
834:
832:
828:
824:
820:
817:
814:
812:
809:
808:
807:
800:
794:
791:
788:
786:
782:
777:
773:
771:
767:
763:
759:
756:
754:
750:
746:
740:
735:
734:
731:
727:
723:
714:
708:
703:
702:
698:
694:
690:
686:
683:
681:
677:
673:
669:
665:
661:
658:
657:
648:
644:
640:
635:
629:
624:
623:
622:
621:
620:
619:
618:
617:
610:
606:
602:
597:
596:
595:
594:
593:
592:
587:
583:
579:
574:
572:
568:
564:
560:
559:
558:
554:
550:
546:
542:
539:
533:
530:
529:
525:
524:
519:
514:
510:
509:
508:
507:
506:
505:
498:
494:
490:
485:
483:
482:
477:
476:
473:
470:
469:
465:
464:
458:
457:
456:
455:
454:
453:
445:
441:
440:WP:OTHERSTUFF
437:
433:
432:
431:
427:
423:
418:
417:
416:
413:
412:
408:
407:
402:
398:
394:
390:
389:WP:OTHERSTUFF
386:
384:
380:
376:
371:
369:
365:
361:
356:
355:
351:
347:
343:
339:
334:
331:
327:
323:
319:
314:
311:
307:
303:
299:
294:
291:
287:
283:
279:
274:
270:
266:
262:
258:
257:
256:
255:
254:
253:
249:
245:
241:
236:
227:
223:
220:
217:
213:
209:
205:
202:
199:
196:
193:
190:
187:
184:
181:
177:
174:
173:Find sources:
169:
165:
161:
158:
152:
148:
144:
140:
135:
131:
126:
122:
118:
114:
110:
109:
105:
102:
99:
95:
92:
90:
87:
85:
82:
81:
80:
78:
73:
66:
63:
61:
60:
57:
56:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
874:
872:
853:
835:
815:
802:
801:
789:
775:
757:
684:
659:
540:
527:
522:
512:
479:
467:
462:
460:motivated".
410:
405:
400:
234:
233:
221:
215:
207:
200:
194:
188:
182:
172:
159:
70:
54:
49:
47:
31:
28:
198:free images
691:, but the
879:talk page
858:Agricolae
823:Snowycats
760:per NOT.
745:BrillLyle
739:Abecedare
722:Abecedare
707:BrillLyle
697:TNT-iable
639:BrillLyle
578:BrillLyle
563:BrillLyle
489:BrillLyle
422:BrillLyle
375:BrillLyle
360:BrillLyle
37:talk page
881:or in a
781:Nunh-huh
628:Ca2james
601:Ca2james
549:Ca2james
523:Spinning
513:template
463:Spinning
406:Spinning
401:deleting
157:View log
98:glossary
39:or in a
843:Felicia
685:Comment
666:- also
342:Wikiacc
322:Wikiacc
302:Wikiacc
282:Wikiacc
261:Wikiacc
244:Wikiacc
204:WP refs
192:scholar
130:protect
125:history
75:New to
854:Delete
846:(talk)
836:Delete
816:Delete
790:Delete
762:Jytdog
758:delete
668:WP:BLP
660:Delete
541:Delete
176:Google
134:delete
55:Enigma
50:delete
798:~~~~
528:Spark
468:Spark
411:Spark
219:JSTOR
180:books
164:Stats
151:views
143:watch
139:links
16:<
862:talk
827:talk
766:talk
749:talk
726:talk
676:talk
662:per
643:talk
605:talk
582:talk
567:talk
553:talk
543:per
511:The
493:talk
442:and
426:talk
403:it.
379:talk
364:talk
212:FENS
186:news
147:logs
121:talk
117:edit
695:is
226:TWL
155:– (
864:)
841:.
829:)
805:10
768:)
751:)
728:)
720:.
678:)
645:)
607:)
584:)
569:)
555:)
495:)
428:)
381:)
366:)
348:)
340:.
328:)
320:.
308:)
300:.
288:)
280:.
267:)
250:)
242:.
206:)
149:|
145:|
141:|
137:|
132:|
128:|
123:|
119:|
52:.
860:(
825:(
764:(
747:(
741::
737:@
724:(
709::
705:@
699:.
674:(
641:(
630::
626:@
603:(
580:(
565:(
551:(
491:(
424:(
377:(
362:(
346:¶
344:(
326:¶
324:(
306:¶
304:(
286:¶
284:(
265:¶
263:(
248:¶
246:(
230:)
222:·
216:·
208:·
201:·
195:·
189:·
183:·
178:(
170:(
167:)
160:·
153:)
115:(
100:)
96:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.