Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/House of Aghall: Difference between revisions

House of Aghall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject, a noble family, looks notable but could in fact be a complete work of fiction since it combines extensive sections that are unsourced and sections where the sourcing is unverifiable. I think this needs to go to draft to get it into decent shape before returning to mainspace. Mccapra (talk) 15:47, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For many admins a poor writing style for a very notable topic is not seen to be set for deletion, just not a valid reason. 2A02:A420:26D:D638:30D0:AD:4744:60F9 (talk) 15:15, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the editor improved it 2A02:A420:26D:D638:30D0:AD:4744:60F9 (talk) 15:18, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment the issue here isn’t writing style, it’s lack of sourcing. Anyone can create an article about a topic, not bother sourcing it, and sprinkle a few inaccessible refs here and there to make it look true. That’s not the standard required for an encyclopedia. WP:BURDEN says “ All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.” As written the article falls a long way short of that standard, so it is effectively impossible to tell whether it is fiction or not. That is why I propose to send it to draft for improvement- ie proper sourcing. Mccapra (talk) 19:32, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes i understand that,

  the writing is fine but it doesnt have accessible sources

  The page creator has a conflict of interest, since they are writing about a family they know, so it (can) be true

  but without good sources, it should be drafted? 2A02:A420:400:326:BDB5:A268:6FCF:5275 (talk) 21:36, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The sources are probably too old to be even found, but since they have a conflict of interest it has a high chance it is true. 2A02:A420:400:326:BDB5:A268:6FCF:5275 (talk) 21:50, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I dont know the page creator but it can be true 2A02:A420:400:326:BDB5:A268:6FCF:5275 (talk) 21:53, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  and lots of historians talking

  https://youtube/ZVrkKZ4Bj20?si=vdah3D-L8jUlLAk4

  https://youtube/7YTBySOyCpo?si=5niLscgriNA8dPtj

  https://youtube/APFzjC_7i9Y?si=Bin7pFxdloW_Sg1U

  i think that will help with its sources?

  (You.tube) 2A02:A420:400:326:BDB5:A268:6FCF:5275 (talk) 22:03, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  But you can also argue that their members didn’t intend fame which does affect their sources but that still doesnt change that they are notable, the sources are too old to be found,but they know this family.2A02:A454:1539:0:50B1:6809:7FED:9C57 (talk) 11:41, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I have a conflict of interest. Sunflowerlilies (talk) 11:39, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]