- 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 merge to Robidoux family. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 03:26, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- Manuel Robidoux (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A number of articles on non-notable members of the Robidoux family have been created, because some descendants of them became notable. This violates WP:NOTGENEALOGY and the basic notability guidelines for biographies.
Manuel or Emmanuel Robidoux (or Robidou as he is also noted in genalogies) is not the subject of significant attention in reliable, independent sources, he only appears in genealogies. The same applies to the following members of the family (all nominated for deletion for the same reason):
- André Robidoux (one of the two sources in his article is the Dictionary of Canadian Biography, but that page doesn't mention him.)
- William (Guillaume) Robidoux
- Joseph Robidoux I
- Joseph Robidoux II (one of the three sources is this, which doesn't seem to mention Robidoux]
- Joseph Robidoux III
Note that the apparent main source for these articles is a book published by Trafford Publishing, a publish-on-demand service.
Fram (talk) 14:51, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:18, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:18, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:18, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep or Merge: per the other AfD's here. This family had a role in the fur-traping trade of their time. Some of these individuals are mentioned by Lewis and Clark, others worked fro John Jacob Astor. They are mentioned in historic works and articles, though small, are sourced. Though the articles could be better sourced and have improved footnoting, I think they meet WP:GNG for historic figures. That said, I am pinging KingJeff1970 who is an expert in this field, and if he disagrees with my analysis, I shall defer to his wisdom. Montanabw(talk) 02:14, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
- Could you please explain what "keep per the other AFDs here" means? I have not started or referenced any other AFDs about this, so keeping these for that reason seems bizarre. The articles are sourced to self-published sources and sources that don't even mention the subjects.
- "Some of these individuals are mentioned by Lewis and Clark, others worked fro John Jacob Astor." This is plainly incorrect. One of these, Joseph Robidoux III, is mentioned by Lewis and worked at most one year for Astor (company founded 1808, Robidoux died 1809). None of the others are mentioned by Lewis or Clark, or can possibly have worked for Astor as they lived way too early. User:MontanaBW, can you please recheck your post wrt these facts? Fram (talk) 07:05, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep: Just to set the record straight, the references above were for related items in the articles. In the article about Andre, the source is providing information on his employer, Eustache Lambert. In the article about Joseph II, the source is about his wife's great-grandfather, Abraham Martin. (I know I should have used citations, but I'm new to Wikipedia and just learned how to use them.)
I did not know that my major reference was self-published, but it was used as sources for the Robidoux brothers (sons of Joseph III), and hopefully they are not also targets for deletion. Nevertheless, this book seems to be well researched and sourced. If you read the Preface and Introduction of this book, you can see why this is a family is of interest. The book seems to be based on legitimate research, with 30 pages of bibliography and nearly 200 pages of footnotes. One reader has pointed me to a newer book, The Brothers Robidoux and the Opening of the American West by Joseph Willoughby, published by the University of Missouri in 2012, which I have ordered and will use to update the articles, should they survive.
As the the comment above on Montanabw statement, I'm puzzled. Both Joseph Robidoux and his sons are mentioned in Meriwether Lewis' note (which I would like to find out more about), and the article in question says the Joseph III and his sons worked for the American Fur Company. It seems to me that the questionable word "some" is actually correct in this context.
- The sons of Joseph Robidoux III are not up for deletion, so no, of "these individuals" (the 6 persons up for deletion), only one is mentioned in the Lewis' note and worked (perhaps, for one year at most) for the fur company (which doesn't convey any notability, but that's another discussion). So no, the questionable word "some" is not correct in this context at all (and the use of "some" and "others" was even worse). This discussion is about Joseph III and his ancestors, not about his descendants who are not up for deletion. Fram (talk) 16:10, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete: The Trafford book is self published and thus probably not a reliable source and not contributing to notability. Being included in a book that lists everyone in the family has little weight in terms of notability. Self publishing in this case opens the door to including coverage of many non-notable individuals. While it may be well researched and sourced I don't think it contributes to notability. Trivial mention in other sources is not a basis for notability. The relationship of the subjects to famous relatives does not contribute to their notability Gab4gab (talk) 08:53, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- While I am not convinced that we need individual articles about each of these individuals, I do believe it is more useful to have information about them here than to not have information about them. Merging them all into an article about the (clearly notable) Robidoux family could be better, keeping the information without pretending that we can write proper biographies of these people. —Kusma (t·c) 09:24, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Merge. I just looked at the Willoughby book on Google Books and it seems like there is enough material to justify a separate article on Joseph III. (He starts his book with Joseph III and doesn't say much about the ancestors.) Of the other five articles, Andre has the most information, the others not so much. I would propose merging the five into a single article under Andre's moniker since that traces the family from France to New France to America (Joseph II came to St. Louis with his son and promptly died). I should get the Willoughby book next week and can update references. There should be some good information to update the articles on the Robidoux sons also.
- Comment arguments for merging are worth considering for the less-known family members. I have adjusted my !vote above. Robidoux family could work. (Example: McCormick family.) Montanabw(talk) 05:32, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170etalk 12:26, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
I took a stab at the consolidated article on the Robidoux family, leaving Joseph Robidoux III as a stand-alone for the time being. Just a first cut and I'll look at it again tomorrow when my brain is refreshed. Any comments are appreciated. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 23:03, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:46, 2 June 2016 (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.