Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thierry Waterford-Mandeville

Thierry Waterford-Mandeville

Thierry Waterford-Mandeville (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)

Poorly sourced, BEFORE doesn't show much more. I am nominating additional pages that are part of the same walled garden and rely on the same level of sourcing and BEFORE. The Yacht club actually shows up in a search - but mainly in directories and not much else, failing CORPDEPTH. All pages are connected in that this individual serves a role in them, he is head of family, were historically owned by the family, or are brands of the organization owned by the family.Icewhiz (talk) 15:16, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Waterford-Mandeville Plantation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Waterford-Mandeville family (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Cambridge Hill Plantation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Old Planteur Rum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

West Indies Yacht Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:28, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:28, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belize-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:28, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:28, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:28, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

• Delete I find nothing that suggests an article could be written about this individual and the related articles which passes WP:V. An exception could be the West Indies Yacht Club, however looking through ads I find for groups with that name, I am not clear that they all refer to the same organization, nor is it clear that they are referring to this organization - for instance I see different phone numbers. Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:39, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Don't Delete: Why when someone is doing something in the West Indies, and Jamaica particularly, we want to obliterate it. This guy is the descendant of one of the wealthier families of planters of jamaica, and still living there. If you knew about Jamaica colonial history, you would have known that this is very rare. He is a local personality. There are plenty of Wikipedia pages on local figures. Why not this one ???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnRandale72 (talk • contribs) 20:10, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

On the Waterford Mandeville Plantation page: This is an historic plantation in Belize. Suppressing this mention is like suppressing the page about Buckingham palace in London.... On the Waterford-Mandeville family page: This family has made headlines for the past 950 years or so, so why suppressing the references, which dates even from books published in 1892!!! It looks like people has been discussing this family since a long time ago! On the Cambridge Hill Plantation page: This is an historic sugar estate in Jamaica. See my comments about the other estate in Belize. They have been there since 1655... and shall not be worthy of Wikipedia ???? Nonsense. On the Old Planteur Rum page: Its an historic brand in Belize. What's the problem ? They've been producing this rum since 1885.... On the West Indies Yacht Club page: There are plenty of pages about minor yacht clubs on wikipedia, and this one, existing since 1885 shall be suppressed ??? Nonsense again. What is going on ? Everytime there is a successful thing in Jamaica, someone try to suppress it. Let us all be grey and transparent.... Complete nonsense to suppress those pages. is there is a pilot in the plane to even allow this sort of questions to be asked ??????????????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnRandale72 (talk • contribs) 20:19, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

• Don't Delete: But I feel you may merge the page about Terry Waterford-Mandeville with the page about the Waterford-Mandeville family, like just copying the page about him and paste it at the bottom of the family page. On the other pages (cambridge hill plantation, waterford plantation, old planteur rum, west indies yacht club) I feel they are sufficiently important locally for not being suppressed, and have even an historical importance (I visited Cambridge Hill myself a few years ago), especially as all those pages had been previously validated by other wikipedia members in 2016 and being on display since 2016, so quite a long time without issues. Jeff2A02:A03F:3E97:A300:70F1:77E2:89BB:6C88 (talk) 10:15, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

  All of these articles could in principle be Wikipedia articles - what is lacking is quality WP:RS - both in terms of WP:V and in terms of establishing WP:GNG. The existence of the Irish branch of the Waterford-Mandeville family (as opposed to the Norman ancestor) is currently sourced to - rumbelize.com (+another page there), a source that doesn't mention them, a law firm's website, yachting club website the latter two only listing names with this surname. So what we are left with is a source on Geoffrey de Mandeville (died on 1100), a source on how some of his descendants got to Ireland (without mentioning Waterford!) and then non-RS (or SELFPUB) sources on people in Belize/Jamica with the name - which beyond the sourcing quality, do not even discuss the family.Icewhiz (talk) 13:21, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

  The Geoffrey de Mandeville book says nothing about the Waterford-Mandeville family - it has none of the information that it is cited to document as ref. 2, except that Geoffrey was ancestor of the Earls of Essex. It looks like fraudulent citation to me. Agricolae (talk) 01:55, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

• As you said, they could be wikipedia articles in principle. This mean in my opinion that they could legitimately be included. However, what I suggest, instead of suppressing those articles, is to enrich them with good sourcing material. Maybe we shall instead put a notice asking wikipedia readers to share their materials on the subject as I am sure there are plenty in books or old articles. Just people haven't yet reached to add it on wikipedia. I feel we shall instead encourages other wikipedia users to go and source those articles. This could only be done by letting those on display with a suitable banner asking for further sources. When I look at the Waterford Mandeville Family page, which is in my opinion the better sourced and the most reliable, we could see contributions for various users adding useful data about the family branches in Ireland, their names variations and many other historic details. This shows the interest on the topic. Maybe one shall also contact the head of the family for inviting him to share documents or things he may have. I just looked him up in the Debretts almanac and he is indeed registered as a member of the historic catholic nobility of Ireland, as 22nd Baronet and hereditary knight, and his title goes back to 1066. I am sure he may have data to share. But Debretts doesn't publish names online, just on their paper yearly edition. Those are just thoughts but I feel we shall side with the inclusive mood and keep those articles, just underlining the need of better sourcing. Jeff2A02:A03F:3E97:A300:70F1:77E2:89BB:6C88 (talk) 23:15, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
• Keep. all but consider merging . We usually do keep articles for historic families of this sort, as there is normally enough material. I don't think it matters much whether or not there are separate articles for each plantation. DGG ( talk ) 04:20, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

  @DGG: - take another look at the sourcing for the family - it is basically a SYNTH - the significant English branch Mandeville (present day Duke of Manchester) is sourced to the ancestor in the 11th century. There is another Irish source (Irish Times) mentioning Mandevilles in general in Ireland. There are no sources (beyond self published or the name appearing in a list (in the law firm or yacht club for instance)) for Waterford-Mandeville. The family article contains the patently untrue claim that Mandeville, Jamaica was named for them - when in fact this was named for the son of governor who was from the English branch (separated hundreds of years from the Irish branches). In short - sourcing for the Irish branches (of which Waterford is but one) is scant and sourcing for Waterford-Mandeville does does not exist.Icewhiz (talk) 05:04, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

  I'll note that I haven't been able to find hardly anything online for +"Waterford-Mandeville" (quotes and plus important - otherwise you get lots of hits where the two aren't near at all) that isn't from the present-day yacht club (and not in a RS), the present-day law firm (listing partners), or rumbelize.com. The sole additional info I did find was from Slavery Abolition Act 1833 (and lots of wiki clones) which currently says Sir Edward Waterford-Mandeville and his family received £22,145 for 1,359 slaves on their Jamaican estates (Airy Castle Plantation and Bellevue Plantation) - which are different plantations - and more to the point not in the source provided (and if it were - we have an ancestor mentioned in a one-liner 150 years ago?).Icewhiz (talk) 07:28, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

References

• Which with a little digging seems quite dubious (beyond lack of sourcing) as [1] doesn't list a Mandeville as an owner for Airy castle, and [2] doesn't for Bellevue Plantation - I'm removing this from Slavery Abolition Act 1833 on wiki.Icewhiz (talk) 08:29, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Your welcome | Democratics ^Talk 08:00, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:19, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

• Keep / Don't Delete: I feel we shall just add a banner to request wikipedia users to enrich the pages. I agree with the trend described above by all (except by Icewhiz) that they are of sufficient importance to be kept, especially with what DGG said: We usually do keep articles for historic families of this sort, as there is normally enough material. I don't think it matters much whether or not there are separate articles for each plantation.JohnRandale72 (talk) 10:22, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
• Delete Thierry Waterford-Mandeville. Neutral on the others. The individual doesn't seem to be especially notable (and doesn't seem to have any right to use a title either - membership of a religious order of chivalry does not confer a title). The other articles may be notable, especially the yacht club. The clear sockpuppeting and ridiculous claims (e.g. comparing a plantation to Buckingham Palace) going on above don't do the article any favours. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:24, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
• Keep 1) To: Necrothesp Yes titles of chivalry usually confers the right to use sir as a prenominal. However, if you had read correctly the Debretts, you would have known that he claims Sir not only for being KLJ but primarily for being hereditary knight of the realm (UK and Ireland), title his branch holds since 1066.... So he is perfectly legitimate to be on wikipedia in my opinion. Having said that, on his personal page topic, maybe it may be useful to redirect or merge with the family's page instead?

2) On the other pages I also agree that they shall be kept as it is. Jeff83.43.171.153 (talk) 00:10, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

• As a very minor cadet branch of Mandeville (a emigrated to Ireland, lending his name to various TownName-Mandeville families as well as Mansfield [3]) - my understanding is that there is no hereditary title - or at least I haven't seen sources confirming such a title.Icewhiz (talk) 07:10, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

No, sorry, Catholic orders of chivalry do not confer titles in the real world. And there is no such thing as a "hereditary knight of the realm". The only hereditary title that carries the pretitle "Sir" is a baronet. He's not one of those (and even if he was, we only regard the person created a baronet as being inherently notable, not his descendants). This is all complete rubbish, I'm afraid, in an attempt to make him sound more important than he actually is. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:51, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

• To: Icewhiz yes papal nobility bears title of Sir too. There is many kind of nobility, not only the UK, but in Vatican too (Also in Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, ... and so on). Its named pontifical nobility..... And you shall know also that Irish titles of nobility, which were suppressed by protestants during the reformation, were also protected by a papal bulle. By the way, in his entry in the Debretts, his name is displayed with postnominals "Bt., KLJ." You too are complete rubbish to make assertions without checking. No need to be rude my dear!83.43.171.153 (talk) 12:04, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

@Necrothesp: - I do suggest you take a closer look at Waterford-Mandeville family - which is similar in its non-notability (and SYNTHY to say the least) to the individual. The two plantation articles and the rum brand also seem to be mainly connected to the subject and created due to the connection. The West Indies Yacht Club does seem to exist, and is more borderline for deletion, however I don't see RSes supporting it.Icewhiz (talk) 08:59, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I would say I was neutral leaning delete on all the articles except the yacht club. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:14, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

• Delete all, except for the West Indies Yacht Club (for noe). Largely unsourced original research without significant coverage in RS; appears to be part of a nn walled garden. No value to the project. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:42, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
• partial Delete - I don't have time to go through all of the nominated pages, but I was led here from Waterford-Mandeville family, which I found to be full of dubious unreferenced material, and even ostensibly-referenced material cites a book that says nothing of the sort. Remove all that, and there is hardly anything to say - not notable. If this it typical of all the pages in this walled garden, then, well, (sigh . . . ). Agricolae (talk) 19:44, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
• Keep I found a page from the West Indies Society for Colonial Studies, which sources material about this family, from the parlementary archives in London mostly. The page url: http://wisfcs.org/waterford-mandeville-family-historic-planters-families-biographies. Hopefully this would close this insane discussion of people giving their opinion without haven't open the books mentioned in reference.83.43.171.153 (talk) 21:54, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Note to closing administrator - this IP address has already logged a *vote, above, so I am striking the duplicate one here. Agricolae (talk) 00:05, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

That self-published page is rubbish when it comes to the origin of the family. It claims that they were rewarded for their service at Hastings with a coat of arms showing three lions, except that the earliest evidence of coats of arms in all of England comes from over 100 years later. It also says that Richard I granted the family the right to use a hyphenated surname, when there was no standard practice for surname usage, let alone a requirement of a royal grant to change alter one's surname, until centuries later. (Neither is given an adequate citation to enable me to figure out what the author of the we page was looking at, but that it is not a valid contemporary record is completely evident from the inherent anachronism.) Whoever put this together has credulously followed the mythology of Tudor or Stuart antiquarians (or even later sources) to present a foundation myth. Such a non-reliable self-published web site should not be viewed as contributing to notability. Agricolae (talk) 00:05, 18 February 2018 (UTC) (struck 'self-published) Agricolae (talk) 01:09, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

It does not seem RSey, and also bears quite a bit of similarity in some portions to the Wikipedia page. Wouldn't be surprised if the author of that web page were in contact with the present day individual for most of the claims.Icewhiz (talk) 10:03, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

• Delete - Fails WP:BLP. I am only speaking on the original nom. No sources found to support WP:N. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 03:55, 19 February 2018 (UTC)