Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/House of Lobanov-Rostovsky

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 keep‎. Improvements and sources presented during this AfD seem to have shifted consensus over to the Keep side. Owen× ☎ 13:12, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

House of Lobanov-Rostovsky

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Follow-up to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khilkov (recently unanimously deleted). WP:UNSOURCED WP:OR, fails WP:GNG. Rule of thumb: if a Russian noble family claims descent from Rurik without a source, that's a red flag. (No objection to keeping Category:Lobanov-Rostovsky family for now; this "article" just adds nothing of value). NLeeuw (talk) 11:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Royalty and nobility, and Russia. NLeeuw (talk) 11:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete. Yes, there was this noble family, but it seems there is no in-depth coverage besides genealogy lists. They do have rurikid origin, but I am not sure it counts to claim for notability. --Altenmann >talk 18:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Changed opinion; Foud source that has basic info about the origin of the family: "Лобановы-Ростовские" . Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopedic Dictionary (in Russian). 1906., dewiki had a rer to its C.o.A: Maximilian Gritzner: Die Europäischen Fürstengeschlechter nicht Römisch-Kaiserlicher oder Deutsch-bundesfürstlicher Extraction. In: J. Siebmacher’s grosses und allgemeines Wappenbuch. Band 2. Bauer und Raspe, Nürnberg 1894, S. 49. And ruwiki has other useful references. --Altenmann >talk 19:53, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The family is listed in principal families in the European book with clear description of its coat of arms [1] and of course in the Russian Velvet Book by the author Aleksey Lobanov-Rostovsky, a familiy member himself, hence passes GNG. The family has a museum dedicated to them [[2]] and the palace in St. Petersburg underlines the notability. Of course the article needs some cleanup to have proper references.

Moreover the Yamagata–Lobanov Agreement gives the family name quite some name recognition. Axisstroke (talk) 11:48, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, (a) listing does not count for WP:GNG, which requires in-depth coverage. (b) Notability not inherited and Yamagata–Lobanov Agreement is irrelevant for an article about noble family. --Altenmann >talk 21:18, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The family is a principal family hence by definition notable as declared both on the Velvet book and other listings. Axisstroke (talk) 20:56, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, in Wikipedia we have our own criteria for notability. Nobility listings contain thousands of petty noble families. In Poland 20% of population used to be szlachta. In Russian Empire every petty warlord on a hill in Caucasus Mountains was given a title of knyaz during "appeasement" of the area. And so on. Merely listing is insufficient to establish notability in en-wiki. --Altenmann >talk 04:25, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As you mention above in your now "Keep" Vote the linked book in my reference [1] has a description of the family and its coat. I agree with you that the entry should be kept. Thank you for the article improvements. Axisstroke (talk) 13:43, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - as noted many times at AfD and other fora, you need to take a look at the sources on other languages' Wikipedia articles on the topic. You also can't take one isolated fact that needs citation as a reason to delete. I'd recommend advocates of keeping the article substantially to add the sources, in context, so that it passes [WP:HEY]]. Bearian (talk) 04:44, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, your vote violates WP:ONUS and WP:BURDEN not to say WP:AGF (suggesting lack of due diligence). If one looks at the ruwiki article, nothing there indicates in-depth coverage beyond genealogy books (Russian: . Родословный сборник, родословная книга. Родословная роспись, Генеалогическое древо. Even "Лобановы-Ростовские" . Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopedic Dictionary (in Russian). 1906. is little beyond name-throwing. --Altenmann >talk 04:53, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  This has been tagged for GNG since 2017 by someone else. It's not just me saying this now.
  And als Altenmann points out, the articles in other languages are essentially just as bad:
  - lv:Lobanovi–Rostovski is WP:UNSOURCED
  - et:Lobanov-Rostovski is 2 WP:SPSes and 1 book from 1854 (WP:AGEMATTERS)
  - de:Lobanow-Rostowski has 1 WP:FAIL, because the claim Die Familie, eine Seitenlinie der Rurikiden, soll auf Juri Dolgoruki (1090–1157), Fürst von Rostow, Großfürst der Kiewer Rus und Gründer von Moskau, ein Sohn des Kiewer Großfürsten Wladimir Monomachs (1053–1125), zurückgehen. Sein Nachkomme war Fürst Wasilko Konstantinowitsch von Rostow (1208–1238). is not supported by this website where you can buy a painting (!) of 'Der Heilige Fürst Wassili Konstantinowitsch von Rostow'; plus 1 book from 1894 (WP:AGEMATTERS)
  - ru:Лобановы-Ростовские has
    1 collection of manuscripts from somewhere in the 17th century ru:Родословные росписи конца XVII века, which is just plain WP:PRIMARY
    
    1 book from 1776 (! WP:AGEMATTERS)
    
    1 book from 1787 (! WP:AGEMATTERS)
    
    1 book from 1810 (! WP:AGEMATTERS) ru:Родословная книга М. Г. Спиридова
    
    1 book from 1854 (WP:AGEMATTERS)
    
    1 book from 1886 ru:Родословный сборник русских дворянских фамилий (WP:AGEMATTERS)
    
    1 book from 1890 (WP:AGEMATTERS)
    
    A museum deadlink
    
    A worldportrait.org deadlink
    
    An archived press release / advertisment for visiting a museum
    
    1 book from 1991 that is not actually used (no in-line citations)
    
    1 book from 2011 that is not actually used (no in-line citations), and appears to be a reprint of WP:PRIMARY ru:Родословная книга М.А. Оболенского from c. 1600 (!)
    
    1 entry in the Russian Biographical Dictionary of 1905 that is not actually used (no in-line citations)
    
    1 1906 Brockhaus and Efron passing mention which Altenmann already assessed as little beyond name-throwing; and finally
    
    4 unreliable WP:SELFPUB genealogy websites, including the notoriously unreliable WP:ANCESTRY.COM.
  In short, it's a lot of hot air. The few relatively modern sources that might be reliable are not even used, are reprints of WP:PRIMARY sources that are not critically examined, or provide so little information that they do not constitute WP:SIGCOV. NLeeuw (talk) 15:09, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 12:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:46, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~if reformatted as a surname page, which it virtually is already, + rename to Lobanov-Rostovsky.~~ see below Ingratis (talk) 15:57, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- sorry; I reverted. People have to evaluate sources during deletion discussion. Nobody prevents you from creating Lobanov-Rostovsky page, though. --Altenmann >talk 16:52, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - P.S. that's what I did now, noticing that there is a voluminous ru:Лобанов-Ростовский surnamer page in ruwiki. --Altenmann >talk 17:04, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, you are wrong: WP:ATD: "If editing can address all relevant reasons for deletion, this should be done rather than deleting the page." I have reverted you. I see that you've unnecessarily created a second surname page, which you've padded out, as you seem to like to do, with a lot of redlinks to other Wikis. Great - so helpful. Ingratis (talk) 18:00, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well thank you very much for the praise. Yes I do like information to be interconnected, including interwiki. Just to make you further happy, I will replace redlinks with articles translated from ruwiki momentarily. Piece of cake. --Altenmann >talk 18:30, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Ingratis. Can be easily kept as an WP:APOENTRIES page. ⁂CountHacker (talk) 02:00, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As pointed out by Altenmann and some others, there's just not enough here. If there are enough notable facts to write about, where it could at least somewhat be expanded and properly sourced, then it would be a keep. As it stands right now though, it's hard to see why it should remain. It might be appropriate to merge the current content into the next most relevant article. Laurelius (talk) 21:37, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @Laurelius:, I did some due diligence and added missing refs into the article, and changed my vote. --Altenmann >talk 20:14, 29 January 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Delete: The procedural keep suggestion above does not address the core issue of notability and verifiability raised by the nominator. There's clearly insufficient reliable sources and a lack of in-depth coverage to justify WP:GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:24, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:14, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As in my comment above, I have re-structured this as a surname page - still needs renaming, which I won't do during an AfD. Longer term, there is no doubt that this is a notable princely family; given the POINTy antipathy on show in the discussion, the content can wait to be replaced as and when, as further sourcing becomes available. Ingratis (talk) 10:26, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- And I reverted it. You are not supposed to destroy a valid article during an AfD dicrussion which has all chances to be kept. --Altenmann >talk 20:03, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I do beg your pardon: I had not realised that you had worked on the article and changed to Keep at the last minute - I change my !vote to a WP:HEY Keep and apologise for my previous ungenerous comments (thank you for filling in the surname page redlinks, which does indeed make me happy). If all Lobanov-Rostovsky's belong to this family, as seems probable, I wonder whether the surname article might as well be merged into this. Ingratis (talk) 17:51, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.