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 delete. Singularity 03:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Giuseppe Said[edit]

Giuseppe Said (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Non-notable alleged claimant to various extinct titles of nobility, created by the subject's son, who at one point [1] put himself in the article. There are only 11 Google hits on this fellow, all from his son's website, this article and Wiki mirrors. The previous AfD cited a three-year-old consensus to Keep at Wikipedia:Deletion_policy/Maltese_nobility, which posited that any noble title anywhere, and anyone who could ever make claim to one, was notable by definition; however, the only source positively connecting Said to these titles come from the son's website, which is a huge WP:COI issue. At the time, the consensus also held that all these Maltese nobility titles had to be improved; three years down the road, this has not happened. Fails WP:N, WP:V  Ravenswing  15:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom - another Tancarville special. andy (talk) 22:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per WP:RS, WP:N, WP:V, WP:OR. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The Maltese nobility may have had some significance at some time. Their great grandchildren (or whatever) have no significance now. The web.archive.org copy of a page of Tancarville's quotes ome of these descendants telling us I doubt the general population occupies any of its waking hours thinking about the nobility. Incidentally, while I'm not sure if the British have a "nobility", the British royles do have some minor significance; but even so, minor British royles do not automatically merit an article. -- Hoary (talk) 15:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Thinly veiled vanity article that fails verifiability. Charles 19:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Should have been deleted in 2005, but alas. Quale (talk) 16:44, 28 May 2008 (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.