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 no consensus. This is messy. AfD is really not meant as a step in dispute resolution. Nevertheless, it seems concensus leans toward keeping this material in some form, though not necessarily this particular article. Closing as no consensus, discussions regarding the proper name and content of the article can proceed in more appropriate forums. Shimeru (talk) 00:43, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note the family name on the grave: Ghetaldi GondolaKeep In my opinion sir, this shouldn't be the meter to judge this case. You should check on the Almanach de Gotha or control on off-line written sources, like The Britannica or The Treccani.
Should be perfect to ask a member of the family, but I think that someone could not approve it. For example, the articles House of Gundulić and House of Getaldić (title using diacritics!) has changed into the actual names despites the Family grave report the correct original name Ghetaldi and Gondola.
I wrote personally the article House of Cerva, spending lot of time and working hard, and I think this's the proper title for the voice, according with the note and the bibliography cited at the end of the article. House of Cerva is mostly different from the article House of Crijević because some sources and some lines have been cancelled or changed.
Oh lolz! Unbelievable... What I meant was that you did not check English usage since you work in Italian. Not that Italians are an "inferior race", or whatever you seem to have imagined. It would be advisable for you to note that I am of Italian ancestry myself. I think it may be my turn to take offense and start demanding an apology for this "YELLING" and aggressive posturing. --DIREKTOR(TALK)22:42, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. References need not be online to be valid. As well, a better way to search online is to search for the surname (without the words "House of") and a word with which the family is associated, such as http://www.google.com/search?q=Cerva%20Ragusa Perhaps a better name for the article would be Cerva (family) rather than the "House of", which might be misunderstood as the name of a company or name of a building. Eastmain (talk • contribs)03:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*Sigh* They need not be, but the issue here is notability, not verifiability (the family certainly existed). The Almanach de Gotha practically lists every single guy who ever held a title. We're looking for English usage, the vast majority of those hits are Italian (English search). Cerva is a company, a common surname, a character from The Sopranos, Ragusa is a city, and Cerva is a town as well, not to mention that Wikipedia hits are included there, etc. etc. Granted there are a few hits, but this obscure surname is way waaay below note for an encyclopedia article. --DIREKTOR(TALK)03:22, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy KeepKeepGiven the merging by Ed, that showed the clear intention to use a valid article in a personal position way I felt compelled to change my vote. This article is IMHO one of the best about the Ragusan nobilty series, rich of informations, and well supported by reliable sources; it should, then, be kept. --Theirrulez (talk) 16:04, 7 May 2010 (UTC) - Obviously Cerva is a very common word in Italian, that the searching can't work well as a reasonable test. Not always online sourced are valid in these cases, often there are different reliable source to be considered. See for example how has been choosen the correct name for the article regardin a similar argument House of Bona, and check the discussion on sources regarding Bona family on Talk:House of Bona. Quite always the romance transcription "Cerva" reflect the original name of the family[reply]
Then check this book, online on google.co.uk, wrote in 1841 in Munich, which is a sort of General resume of the aristocratic families and patriciate in Dubrovnik until that date.
I am the author, I wrote the article, translating it from Italian and I think it's correct. The page House of Crijević created after, as a replicant (urge to be cancelled), copying content from House of Cerva, it's an article with strange missing part and with a wrong use of family name. Note that the title House of Crijević contains diacritics. --Theirrulez (talk) 05:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge. This is a duplicate article of House of Crijević. Until the weekend, it was a redirect, until someone with an axe to grind decided that that would not do. The issue here is whether Wikipedia should refer to this family by the name of Crijević or Cerva. As far as I can tell, none of the authors (although these are scant in both directions) uses House of Cerva, so either the redirect should be restored, or this article deleted, whichever is considered more appropriate. The policy on merging duplicate articles is however pretty specific here. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 07:08, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (off crono) I want to underline, sir, that I created this page before and only after this it has been deliberately duplicated by User:Direktor who created House of Crijević. History of articles never lie. Thanks for consider it, sir. --Theirrulez (talk) 13:03, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. DIREKTOR(talk·contribs·count) states that "We're looking for English usage, the vast majority of those hits are Italian." No. References in any language can be valid. There is no requirement that references be in English. (External links are another matter.) Eastmain (talk • contribs)09:08, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I know sources can be in any language (thanks you for pointing that out to a guy with 3,000 edits on you). :) What I am saying is that the subject of this article is unknown or completely obscure in the English speaking world and does not meet notability requirements. The article was created for personal reasons more than anything, as part of an ongoing conflict. This is an obscure surname shared by a LOT of people. --DIREKTOR(TALK)11:09, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I struck-through your !vote here, because you are the nominator; adding a !vote down here in addition to your nomination comments above, 12+ hours after the nomination, is confusing and could be seen as disingenuous. --Darkwind (talk) 13:06, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that you favor "delete" is established by the fact that you nominated the article originally and provided the rationale for such at the top of the page. Adding a !vote is acceptable, but typically you'd do so right after the nomination (at the top), in the form "Delete, as nominator. ~~~~" or similar. Waiting until discussion has begun, then adding a !vote with a restated rationale can be confusing to editors who may not be reading carefully, as well as possibly creating a surface appearance that there is more support for "delete" than there is.
In the end, it doesn't make a difference to the outcome of the discussion, as the closing admin would already know you're the nominator, but it doesn't look good. I'm sorry if I sounded like I was accusing you of anything - I'm not, and I take no position in this particular discussion. As for this thread, it's getting off-topic; if you'd like to discuss further, let's use the talk page of the discussion, or you can comment directly to me. --Darkwind (talk) 22:18, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not an Italian name, Salvio. It's simply the original romance form of the name, which is the official one on the documents and it's also the preferred to pronounce in english. I's not a language matter. Look at Grifter72 explanation. --Theirrulez (talk) 17:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've read it and, in fact, I support the proposal to move this article to the romance name. My opinion, to make it plain, is that we should first merge the two articles, and then decide which title the resulting article should go under. For the record, as I've said, I think it should be Cerva.Salvio (Let's talk 'bout it!) 19:29, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is almost certainly a sock vote. This and similar articles have been under consistent attack by IP socks of several banned sockpuppeteering users. --DIREKTOR(TALK)18:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This article on Ragusan nobility was created as a copy from itWiki. It may be notable in Italian-speaking world, but certainly not here. --DIREKTOR(TALK)18:18, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with Grifter72 in consideration of the existence of local romance language that is different from Italian. The Croatian translation is subsequent. In the historical articles we must respect the historical authenticity of the surname and be in favour of the most used surname during the centuries. --Ilario (talk) 19:56, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I feel compelled to clearly point out that the user who consider this article notable in Italian-speaking world, but certainly not here, is the same user who have copied the exact same brand new page I created (House of Cerva) to write the article House of Crijević: page history shows the truth. This evidence, added to all the reliable sources here shown about he matter, has contributed to my decision to propose (trough this) the moving of the replica article, House of Crijević to his correct original name, House of Cerva.--Theirrulez (talk) 20:36, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
After having fixed the cut-&-paste move by merging the page histories at "House of Cerva", reading the edit history is less simple. I provide a time-line here to illustrate Theirrulez's comment (all times UTC):
23:37, 16 February 2010: "House of Crijević" created as a redirect to "Patrician (post-Roman Europe)".
14:45, 1 May 2010: "House of Cerva" created as an article by Theirrulez.
15:00, 1 May 2010: DIREKTOR transforms "House of Cerva" into a redirect to "House of Crijević".
15:24, 1 May 2010: DIREKTOR transforms "House of Crijević" into an article by copying-&-pasting the contents of "House of Cerva" (with some modifications). – To simplify comparisons between both versions of the article, I have made this diff. comparing their respective states before being merged.
Note: I have merged both entries at House of Cerva (details). Now that the technical details have been solved, I hope it will be easier to focus on the merits of the topic itself, without being distracted by the existence of duplicate entries, improper cut-&-paste moves or licensing violations. - Best, Ev (talk) 23:10, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reading Giorgio Orsini I've learned that this great medieval Italy's architect is no more than a Croat (Juraj Dalmatinac). One day we'll read: George Washington is actualy Croat Juraj Zagreb.--71.163.232.225 (talk) 00:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is for learning. You may also be surprised to find that many people from the Croatian region of Dalmatia, a region inhabited by a majority Slav (Croat) population since the early Middle Ages, - are Croats. :) I hope the shock is not too great. --DIREKTOR(TALK)01:09, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I find your response not shocking, rather infantile. I. K. Sakcinski, who is considered to be patriot and cultural figure did some pioneering work in Croatian historiography and bibliography, wrote in his book Lexicon of Yugoslav artists that Roman emperor Diocletian was one of the Yugoslav artists. Another Croatian 'historian' D. Pavlicevic wrote that American native tribe Mateo descends from a common ancestor, some Croat Mate. Moreover, this 'discovery' was an entry in a history textbook of the Croatian primary school curriculum. I did not expect that you might be at a higher level of knowledge than these two 'historians'.--71.163.232.225 (talk) 00:03, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Leaving a part stupid nationality matters, I just finished an hard but satisfying job: I completed the articles fixing the infobox including croatian transcription of the original name, fixing the links, and adding a new image. I left some modifications found in the DOKTOR's version, and now IMHO the article matches exactly the standards. --Theirrulez (talk) 05:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The reasoning behind the nomination does not hold: "I get zero Google hits, therefore the subject is non-notable". Maybe it's simply mistitled, which is solved by renaming, not deletion. Maybe it is a duplication of a correctly titled article, which is solved my merging, not deletion. A bad nomination marked by a lack of good faith effort to establish and/or communicate alternative ways of solving the perceived problem. GregorB (talk) 07:31, 4 May 2010 (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.
