Please delete the "Radwan Dąbrowski-Żądło Family" family page, which simply redirects to another page with the correct form of the name.
Also, please remove these photos:
These were transferred from Wikipedia to Familypedia without authorization during an article deletion dispute regarding the notability of this family.
Thank You. -- Fpjohnsmith 09:34, January 5, 2011 (UTC)
- Redirects are generally good things, avoiding broken links and minimizing possible duplication. I prefer not to delete them unless there is a problem. — Robin Patterson (Talk) 13:45, January 5, 2011 (UTC)
- The images appear to be either Fair Use or Creative Commons, according to their licensing notes, and therefore OK here as long as they are used only to illustrate pages about the people concerned. If there is more to it than meets the eye, please supply links to relevant discussions if they still exist. — Robin Patterson (Talk) 13:45, January 5, 2011 (UTC)
- Following response copied from Robin's talk page:
Thanks for your reply.
I asked for that deletion for several reasons:
01) The intent of that article was to be encyclopedic, not genealogical, and therefore on Wikipedia.
02) There were two deletion nominations of that article on Wikipedia.
03) The article survived the first deletion nomination.
04) The nominating administrator assumed foul play, since he lost round one to someone he considered a neophyte, so he bid his time while seething.
05) He, considering himself a GodKing, canvassed a Wikipedia lynch mob he corresponds with regularly, and they reached a consensus the article should be deleted. That's my opinion, perhaps I'm wrong given I'm biased in this regard.
06) After deletion, the result was a nasty and lengthy deletion review, and in the course of that review, someone (I have no idea who) took it upon themselves to upload the article, along with the accompany pictures, to this site, misinterpreting the purpose of the article to be genealogical.
07) That's not the purpose of the article, and the two photographs uploaded here, which I requested be deleted, upon consideration of points brought up in the deletion review, should not be on the Internet.
08) "Radwan Dąbrowski-Żądło" is an incorrect and very irregular form of the name, never used, except here incorrectly, hence my request for deletion of that redirection link. In the interests of historical accuracy, I do not think "Radwan Dąbrowski-Żądło" should appear in Google or other search engine results. It's widely promulgating a confusing mistake. There's already enough confusion regarding things Polish.
09) "Żądło-Dąbrowski z Dąbrówki h. Radwan" is how the name appears in armorials, and how Polish scholars currently refer to the name.
10) I'm not averse to having a link from Wikipedia to Familypedia, where this article is concerned, hence the current link to Wikipedia, but having to maintain two separate versions of the article would lead to inaccuracies and omissions.
11) You can view the deletion debates here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%C5%BB%C4%85d%C5%82o-D%C4%85browski_z_D%C4%85br%C3%B3wki_h._Radwan
12) I hope you don't read it. It's all rather boring and sordid, full of accusations of bad faith and disreputable motives (the usual fare), although I tried to put up a valiant fight and vanquish what I saw as the dishonoring of Wikipedia's core principles.
13) I'm at your mercy, so I kindly request again the deletion of the redirect link containing the improper form of the name "Radwan Dąbrowski-Żądło."
14) This all might be very tedious, and perhaps that redirection link was already deleted, if so, disregard all. I never know with websites, caches, and technical glitches.
I Thank You for Your Time and Consideration -- Fpjohnsmith 12:40, January 8, 2011 (UTC)
- Nobody else replying in several days, so here's an update of what I drafted as a reply but lost.
The redirect seems to be doing its job perfectly, and we would be silly to delete it. It stops people (the original author of the "wrong" title and everyone else who might be tempted to use it) from re-creating the page and spending time duplicating the info. Where it gets into search engines, it will probably be only to redirect to the correct name, as it does on my search engine. Here (with my emphasis) are the top three hits from my Yahoo-based search for the incorrect name a few minutes ago:
- Radwan Dąbrowski-Żądło Family - VisWiki
- Radwan Dąbrowski-Żądło Family - Radwan coat of arms, Rod (god), Gens, Miecznik, Jan Nepomucen Bobrowicz - VisWiki
- viswiki.com/en/Radwan_Dąbrowski-Żądło_Family - Cached
- Radwan Dąbrowski-Żądło Family | TripAtlas.com
- Pronunciation of Radwan Dąbrowski-Żądło Radwan Dąbrowski-Żądło  is pronounced "Rodvon Dombrovski-Zhondlo". Origins of the Radwan Dąbrowski-Żądło Family
- tripatlas.com/Radwan%20Dąbrowski-Żądło%20Family - Cached
- Żądło-Dąbrowski z Dąbrówki h. Radwan - Familypedia
- 1 Talk; Żądło-Dąbrowski z Dąbrówki h. Radwan Edit Redirected from Radwan Dąbrowski-Żądło Family. Edited by Fpjohnsmith; View full history
- familypedia.wikia.com/wiki/Radwan_Dąbrowski-Żądło_Family - Cached
(The first two, and many of the later hits, most of which are probably on a Google hit list too, rather give the lie to your statement that "Radwan Dąbrowski-Żądło" is an incorrect and very irregular form of the name, never used, except here incorrectly!! You've got a lot of work to do before that phrase disappears from search engines. I suggest that you let our redirect continue to do its correcting job.)
Familypedia is a genealogy and family history encyclopedia.
Wikipedia is not. It is a general encyclopedia, which obviously does not include family history material that is considered to be not notable enough to be of general interest.
The person who copied the article from Wikipedia was perfectly authorised, according to the license used by both sites and tacitly acknowledged by the person who published the article on Wikipedia. The license is referred to just below the edit box of everything written or edited on Wikipedia (in much the same way as it is referred to here).
An article about family history is just as appropriate here as on Wikipedia; probably more so, because it is welcome to include all manner of detail that the Wikipedia guardians could easily consider non-notable and therefore delete. You can even create subpages or related pages (for individual people, for example) that would be less likely to survive on Wikipedia. We old-timers will be happy to help.
As I said above, the two images seem to be available for appropriate copying. Do you know how they came to be on Wikimedia Commons?