Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy/Maltese nobility

Copyright issue

While each of his pages reads 'created by me and used with permission' or something similar, there is some doubt about whether this works with, or breaks, the Wikipedia license. I have contacted the Copyvio team about this issue so that they can take a look. Radiant! 09:24, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

• User:Tancarville was asked to provide a GFDL release on 2004-10-28 by User:RickK. See User_talk:Tancarville#Are_you_Charles_Said_Vassallo.3F. I'm not sure whether "used with permission" constitutes "released under the GFDL", but that was his response the next day. Uncle G 20:26, 2005 Feb 25 (UTC)
  • I have spoken to Tancarville, and he seems willing to release his site as GFDL. This should be resolved in a couple of days. Radiant! 10:03, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

Arguments for deletion

• Starblind's comment withdrawn, and moved to below.
• The licensing of these documents is in question, and the articles may in fact be copyvio. Stating that they are 'used with permission' is not the same as releasing them under the GDFL. Radiant! 15:05, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
• It may be argued that the articles are genealogy, and the adagim is that Wikipedia is not a genealogy database. Radiant! 15:05, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Nobility does not imply notability. A noble title, though noble, may not be notable. Indeed, most titles are unknown to Maltese citizens (pop. c. 400,000), let alone their notability. Their importance in history, is also contested. Maltesedog 12:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Arguments for keeping

• In response to the genealogy argument, it may also be argued that genealogy of nobility is in fact notable. Radiant! 15:05, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
• "Original research" in my mind means something substantially less inclusive than "research I have done." Looking into obscure byways of history such as noble titles on Malta may be "original research" in the plain-English sense, but is not a "new theory" otherwise unadorned by public noteworthiness within the meaning of the policy. While I suspect that these articles may need cleanup to make them NPOV and more encyclopedic in tone, they seem reasonably notable and interesting. Keep these articles as a class. -- Smerdis of Tlön 17:42, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Agree with previous. It's secondary research. It's exactly the same thing as anyone else does when they look up stuff in libraries (or the web) for most of the articles in Wiktionary. I don't consider this an argument for keeping; rather, I consider it a contradiction of the "original research" theory. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:13, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Yep. This is not what "original research" means. These are fine and verifiable encyclopedia articles. Obscure, but we're not going to run out of paper - David Gerard 21:23, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Agree with above - looking up stuff in books is not what is meant by "original research". The articles are obscure but keep-worthy - of course, if the frequent allegations of copyright infringement on these articles turn out to be true, they have to be dealt with accordingly, but there's no reason to delete all these articles based on topic -- Ferkelparade π 10:31, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• These articles are perfectly valid inclusions in Wikipedia. They are neither nonsense nor vanity - nor are they original research as they do not present a unique or eccentric opinion on the subject. In short, there is no reason to delete, and every reason to keep them - albeit with the usual structural and grammatical improvements that apply to all articles.--Centauri 10:47, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Concur with the above. This is not original research. The articles could be restructured and need cleaning, but these are no grounds for deletion.vlad_mv 14:45, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep with reservations, particularly about the quality of the articles, and potential copyvio in Fournier. This stuff might be obscure, but if it is well-written and accurate, it'd be a valuable contribution. Android79 14:50, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but Cleanup. Actually, a couple of them are definitely not original research because I rewrote them. It was me who added cleanup tags to most of the others back at the beginning of January. For the ones I rewrote, I used Said-Vassallo's web site for much of the information, however, and cleaned up the text considerably. This creates a somewhat strange situation: if Said-Vassallo writes the articles in the Wikipedia, some people will construe them as original research. If someone else writes them based on the information on Said-Vassallo's web-site, it is not original research, and Said-Vassallo is simply a source. One can of course question the veracity and reliability of this source, but one cannot say it is original research. But, even when Said-Vassallo writes the articles, I think it is stretching the point to say that it is original reseach. His work is presumably based on primary records and secondary sources, some of which he cites. I would agree that he is not good about citing his sources, although he does to some degree. The main problems I have with most of these articles are that they are very poorly written, long, meandering, repetitious, sometimes verging on incoherent, and marred by an excessively fawning attitude towards these families. Many of them read like notes from disparate sources which have not been worked up into a connected text. (Except, of course, for the two or three that I rewrote!) Also, a few of them seem to be pushing a personal agenda that Charles Said-Vassallo has regarding his own family's claims to Maltese noble titles. All that means that they should be cleaned up, not deleted.

--BM 15:12, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Please correct me if I am wrong, but I was under the impression that this process was used to create a policy/precedent for deletions. If my understanding is correct, then we shouldn't be arguing about the current content, but instead should be discussing whether or not the Maltese nobility per se is notable. And I believe that the community has concurred in the past that the nobility of various different countries does pass the test. HyperZonk^talk 17:41, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Not exactly. The purpose of this process was to establish consensus over the inherent notability (or lack thereof) of nobility in general, or that of Malta in particular. The fact that a number of those pages have been VfD'ed recently (and some of them have been voted for deletion) would be a good reason to ask this once more. Radiant! 19:46, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
• As far as I can tell, the topics are encyclopedic. I agree that the quality of the articles is poor, and that there are possible copyright issues, but we can fix those by rewriting rather than deleting -- Dpm64 03:14, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • The standard approach for copyright violations, where there is no prior non-violating text to revert back to, is to delete and to start afresh from scratch. This avoids any later problems with the article being "tainted" by its prior history. Unfortunately, that would pose (presuming that we did it) a difficulty here. As has been pointed out, the original author would pretty much have to be the source for any rewrite. Uncle G 20:26, 2005 Feb 25 (UTC)
• Keep. These articles have a good chance of being used by someone doing research on these nobel people. Now, we all know that Wikipedia shouldn't be used for real research, but these articles provide an excellent springboard. -newkai | talk | contribs 18:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep On the condition that additional sources be sought to the extent possible and anything backed up only be the author be tagged as such - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 13:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Arguments for merging

None as yet.

Other arguments and comments

• I do worry a bit about the amount of excerpting the author has done from other sources. He says, for example, Some sections excerpted from "Popes Through the Ages" by Joseph Brusher, S.J. Electronic version copyright © 1996 New Advent, Inc.. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:22, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• I am mildly opposed to the principle of copy/pasting other websites onto Wikipedia. Not on grounds of potential copyvio, but for the reason that the poster should take the time to wikify them. Radiant! 09:32, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
• If I'm reading this correctly, these would seem to be deleteable as admitted original research. The Fournier article, for example, ends with the following: "This Research was researched by Charles Said-Vassallo", who is of course the article's creator, User:Tancarville. While I personally consider this material interesting, it seems that this would make it unsuitable for Wikipedia per Wikipedia:No_original_research. After carefully reading the Keep comments, I've been convinced that this material does not, in fact, constitute original research in the way that WP commonly uses that term. And while I've never said anything against the obvious encyclopedic notability and interest of these topics, I'm still troubled with verifiability, and feel these probably should be scrutinized to determine how much of the material is verifiable or not. For example, one of the references on Fournier is "unpublished research papers" of the article author himself! If they've never been published or reviewed, who knows what's in them (or not in them) and how accurate it is? Verifiability is one of the centreal principles of WP (and all encyclopedias) ans we must not ignore that fact. I'm not saying the articles should be deleted for this reason, just examined, and possibly edited if necessary. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:45, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
• About the copyright issue, please note that the article on Fournier ends up with this line: "(Text originally based on that of a website by Charles Said Vassallo, by permission.)" May the content of an article in Wikipedia be something that "is being used under permission", like images? I've never seen such a thing before. This line is repeated in most of the pages created by Charles Said-Vassallo on the subject, for instance Maltese nobility, Committee_of_Privileges_of_the_Maltese_Nobility, De_Sayd, Vassallo-Paleologo. Sometimes it is shortened to "Information provided by Charles Said-Vassallo", "Material provided by Charles Said-Vassallo": no copyvio here, though IHMO very lacking in taste. vlad_mv 15:17, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't believe it's customary to encyclopedia pages with your name. Anyway the legal point is that he must not only give permission for his information being used here (since he put it here himself), he must also give permission for other people to reproduce and/or edit the information, as they're bound to do since this is a Wiki after all. So I believe he should be contacted to affirm this, and if he doesn't we'll have to remove the articles because of copyvio. Luckily he should be easily traceable via his webpage. Radiant! 19:46, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
    • I think that last part sounds quite reasonable. We can hardly accuse someone of violating their own copyright after all, but it doesn't hurt to make sure he knows exactly what he's getting into. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:58, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
• The two basic problems that involve deletion are the copyright issue and the verifiability. The copyright issue can be solved by User:Tancarville putting a GFDL notice on his web site. The verifiability problem is harder to solve, and is the classic problem where only a single editor does/can sit down and read the sources. As Wikipedia:verifiability says, the only real solution is full and unambiguous attribution and complete citations. The remaining problems are matters of topic splitting (merger) and rambling (cleanup). Uncle G 20:26, 2005 Feb 25 (UTC)
• I don't understand why there is a copyright issue, and I don't think people should be in such a big rush to create an issue where there is not one. Anybody who contributes text to Wikipedia has released that text under the GFDL. It is not necessary to get them to double-swear that they really meant it. If Tancarville changes his mind and demands that the articles be removed, then it will be time to deal with the issue. Meanwhile, the only problem created by the fact that the original text of the articles comes from Tancarville's web site would be if the person who posted the text was anyone else besides Tancarville himself. But that is not the case. I think if you read the Talk pages you will find dialog concerning this issue between Tancarville and other editors who concerned themselves with this before. Also, the notation at the foot of the article is not unprecedented. Many articles, for example, have the notation that the original text came from the 1911 Edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica, and there are other examples. I don't think there is any reason why that notation cannot be removed, or changed if people object to it; but I don't see anything wrong with it either. --BM 21:49, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • The problem is that he has copy/pasted the text from an existing source (even if that was his own website). This could lead to a legal conflict in copyright. It's best to be very careful about those. I agree that it probably won't be a problem, but since IANAL (and YANALE :) ), the Copyvio team should look into it. The 1911 EB is public domain because of its age, so it may freely be included. To me, it feels like 'text from the EB' is an attribution, and 'text provided by Joe User' is vanity. Especially as, once the page has been edited by others, it is no longer strictly true. Radiant! 22:01, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • The {{1911}} issue is quite different to this one, and indeed is the reverse of it. The {{1911}} notation indicates that text that people might think is a copyright violation actually isn't, because it is from a public domain source. What's been happening here, however, is that text that people might think is GFDL is being submitted with an unclear "permission" clause (and by an author whose publications of the same text elsewhere are explicitly not GFDL-compatible) and sprinkled with copyright declarations from other non-GFDL sources (although not by Tancarville or Conte Said-Vassallo in some cases). The simplest solution, that will resolve this matter for good and prevent this from being a perennially bubbling concern (and this is now the fourth time that it has come up), is for Charles Said-Vassallo to licence his web site under the GFDL. A more complicated solution would be a standard licencing boilerplate for his contributions along the line of {{1911}}, to make it clear that they really are multi-licenced. A third solution would be a "Yes, I multi-licence all of my Maltese nobility content, taken from my own non-GFDL web-site, under the GFDL." on Tancarville's user page, just like the creative commons multi-licensing declarations that others sport on their user pages. I think that the root cause of this is Charles Said-Vassallo not understanding the need to clearly multi-licence, here. Uncle G 22:58, 2005 Feb 25 (UTC)
    • I think if Charles Said-Vassalo (who, we now know, it's really Tancarville) had simply pasted text from his non-GFDL website into Wikipedia, it would be reasonable to assume he was agreeing with GFDL licensing, since it is clearly stated in every page that you are doing so when you post. What bothers me is the addition of these words, "By permission", which seem to imply exactly the opposite: that in spite of the post this is non-GFDL material used only by permission. Of course, this can be easily solved in any of the ways listed above. vlad_mv 02:20, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • I fully agree that it would be 'reasonable to assume'. However, that statement has no legal bearing. Law is tricky. Radiant! 09:51, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
        • I found a mention of this situation in Spotting_possible_copyright_violations. It states that it is no copyvio when the author of a website pastes content from one of its webpages into an article, so I suppose the above mentioned assumption may have legal bearing after all. Nevertheless, I'm still not prepared to say what the words "By permission" mean in legal terms. vlad_mv 15:18, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • I think the key words here above were "IANAL". "By permission" in that notation means only that he has licensed the use of the text. That is true of everybody who posts text here under the GFDL. You guys are creating an issue where there isn't one. In particular, telling him that he should put a GFDL notice on his web-site in order to square things on Wikipedia is completely wrong and is asking for an issue to be created where there is none. Where on earth did you come up with that idea? There is no issue to square, and if there were, it would be resolved by a simple statement from him on the Talk page (1) that he is the author of the text and holds the rights to it; and (2) that he understands that he has licensed the text that he posted to Wikipedia under the GFDL. Both are actually unnecessary, since people affirm both of these points by posting the text. It is not in the interest of Wikipedia for the notion to be propagated that a contributor must affirm these things separately from the act of posting to make the GFDL license operative. Multi-licensing is not an issue here either. For the text to be free of legal problems on Wikipedia, he only needs to license it under GPFL, which he does by posting it, assuming it is his text. Before you start representing yourself to Wikipedia contributors as its copyright lawyers and telling them what they need to do, please make sure that what you are saying is correct. Sorry to be a bit uncivil, but there are way too many people on the Internet who say IANAL and then go ahead and let it rip with their legal opinion. It is one thing to shoot off your uninformed mouth, which is what I am also doing here, but it is another thing when you start telling Wikipedia contributors what they have to do based on your non-existent legal expertise. --BM 12:38, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • I'll stick to those words then: IANAL, hence I'm not prepared to say what those words "By Permission" mean in legal terms. I'd rather ask the opinion of an expert, and that was the reason for raising the issue. If you are that expert and are positively sure your interpretation is correct, great, that was the point of mentioning the fact here. Of course, the issue would never have been raised if many pages in Wikipedia ended up with the line "(Text originally based on that of a website by XXXXXXXX, by permission.)" - and they don't. I concur with you that asking the author to license his site under GFDL may be unnecessary: a note at his User Page would probably suffice, or maybe he could remove the words "By Permission" himself. In spite of what you said, I'd still like to state clearly that I find your lack of civility uncalled for. We are just trying to understand a situation which is unusual in Wikipedia. Your help is as wellcome as anybody's, but we are not getting anywhere by telling people to shut their uninformed mouths. vlad_mv 15:18, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Just to end this and future discussions on the subject - I have contacted Tancarville and he's perfectly willing to license the texts he's posted on WP as such. Radiant! 11:21, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

Re-opened discussion

This discussion has been re-opened as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barony of Tabria. The issues raised are those of verifiability and original research. Usenet discussions have been referred to, along with the implication a lot of this content is purely Charles Said Vassallo's own invention, and thus original research. Concerns about sources for this content have also been raised. Uncle G 18:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The major issue is reputable sources and original research. It might be a hoax, but that is a minor issue. Copyright is no longer a big issue. A lot of discussion is going on in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barony of Tabria. Janbrogger 21:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Some comments:

1. I'm surprised to see that the question of a hoax is a "minor issue". It is or it isn't an issue. If it is an issue, it strikes me as a major one.
2. It seems that consensual opinion agrees on the following conclusions: / While Wikipedia is not a genealogy database, genealogy of nobility and royalty is considered encyclopedic. Whatever the importance of genealogy of "nobility" during the period when this "nobility" has some privileges, I strongly disagree with any claim of any importance once those privileges have been stripped. A lot of these articles talk about the recent or current holders of these "titles"; this strikes me as simple vanity or simple-minded toadying. Or am I wrong, and does Malta have a bicameral legislature in which these "counts", etc., have votes? Or do these "titles" have some other significance?
3. A number of the sources are said to be by "Gauci,C.A"; I think he is this person. That the article on him was deleted in itself says nothing about the quality of his writing or its citability, but the AfD is, I think, illuminating. -- Hoary 00:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe Janbrogger shouldnt be allowed to simply want something deleted because of what he hears. One needs to check and see if this is of any essence. I can cite Burkes Burkes on Foreign Titles regarding Maltese titles, if needs be. Some people shouldnt rush into things without atr least consulting. Fortunately I was sent an email by a worried editor. Unlike the person who placed all for deletion never bothered to state his true intentions. My problem has been all along which I do admit, is time and in future any new additons will be referenced. I shall amended all of the Maltese nobiltiy with the correct sources, etc.Tancarville 16:58, 23 July 2006.

My thoughts on the matter are:

• First, the question of notability seems to have been the chief topic of the previous discussion, and on that I stand by it. The heirs of noble titles will continue to attract curiosity and are therefore notable even if the titles themselves are inconsequential today. Even if the titles are remarkably obscure, their inclusion remains warranted: avoiding systematic bias requires that we not confine ourselves to stuff that people in the English speaking world are familiar with.
• Assuming good faith, it's going to take more than a reference to a Usenet thread to convince me that these articles are in fact a hoax.
• Verifiability is the chief concern. Usually, though, verifiability is a cleanup matter, not a deletion matter. Frankly, I'm not sure that it was clear from the previous discussion that Charles Said Vassallo and User:Tancarville were the same person. That said, unpublished research is not going to be good enough. Tancarville has furnished most of the articles in question with general references from a list of books. Further detail, customized for the individual articles, would be a welcome improvement, but everyone involved should understand that this may take some time. I'd especially like to get confirmation of the "Adami Collection" and learn how this collection can be accessed and searched. Smerdis of Tlön 19:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Does http://encyclopedia.vestigatio.com/Maltese_nobility count as an adequately independent reference ? Sockpuppet

Sockpuppet: no, It is a copy of wikipedia. 「ѕʀʟ·✎」

Smerdis of Tlön writes: The heirs of noble titles will continue to attract curiosity and are therefore notable even if the titles themselves are inconsequential today. My impression is that they attract very little curiosity other than what is vigorously drummed up by a very small number of people, notably Charles Said Vassallo on his own website (where for example he presents interviews of these "nobles", asking them if they think they deserve particular privileges, etc., and is answered that no they don't). Obviously CSV's activities on his own website are entirely legitimate. However, I'm much less happy about WP being used to publicize these, well, non-titles. So for example I'd turn

The Counts Fournier is a title of Maltese nobility. The current count is Stephen Sant Fournier, the ninth Count. His heir is his son, Tyler Sant Fournier, styled the Contino.

into

The Counts Fournier was a title of Maltese nobility.

with a continuation about "Fournier" during the period when it actually meant something. And I'd have Maltese nobility say what, if anything, nobility meant, and until when it meant it. (Maltese nobility now says who became "nobles", and presents lists of titles; it does not say what, if anything, nobility actually meant.) -- Hoary 00:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Keep Not to beat a dead horse, but the February 2005 consensus seems admirable to me. That conclusion on original research, in my mind deserves wider application. I've seen people cast aspersions with that phrase just because someone looked something up in a book. These are not hoaxes. Bejnar 20:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Mġarr

Mġarr is a real place. I have seen it first hand. You can visit the local council webpage. Please exclude it from consideration with the Maltese nobility issue (on which I have no opinion). 「ѕʀʟ·✎」

Keep Mgarr only, delete the rest. The reason Mgarr was nominated was because the text was entirely based on one persons original research (see WP:NOR) and no reliable sources were quoted (see WP:RS). I'm happy to see that the place actually exists (I didn't really doubt that), but better yet that we have a good source. The text of the Mgarr entry should be entirely re-written, and not use the original research unreputable source, but rather a good reputable source. The issue was not Mgarr but the sources. As I start, I deleted most of the text. I kept the things I could verify on the local council web site. Please expand it. But yes, keep it apart from the AFD. Thanks for the local council link. Janbrogger 21:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that was a bit hasty of an edit. I'm working on getting some more sources. You're welcome.. 「ѕʀʟ·✎」

I believe Janbrogger shouldnt be allowed to simply want something deleted because of what he hears. One needs to check and see if this is of any essence. I can cite Burkes Burkes on Foreign Titles regarding Maltese titles, if needs be. Some people shouldnt rush into things without atr least consulting. Fortunately I was send an email by a worried editor. Unlike the person who placed all for deletion never bothered to state his true intentions. Tancarville 16:58, 23 July 2006.

Barony of Tabria

There is still substantial discussion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barony of Tabria. Should it be moved here? Janbrogger 22:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

It didn't seem to move here.. 「ѕʀʟ·✎」

the AFD closed with no consensus. 「ѕʀʟ·✎」

References

· The Adami Collection The Adami Collection

· Burkes Peerage, Baronetage and Knightage of the UK.-Various editions.

· Cassar Desain, Marchese L.A., " Genealogia della famiglia Testaferrata di Malta." Malta, 1880.

· Crispo Albero Genealogical ed Istorico della Famiglia Crispo, Messina, 1797.

· De Piro, N., "Casa Rocco Piccola", The Conde' Nast Publications 1999.' Http://www.vol.net.mt/casarocca '

· Gauci,C.A.," The Genealogy and Heraldry of the Noble Families of Malta", Gulf Publishing Ltd, Malta, 1981.

· Gauci,C.A.," The Genealogy and Heraldry of the Noble Families of Malta, Volume Two", Publishers Enterprises Group (PEG) Ltd, 1992.

· Gauci,C.A and Mallet, P.,"The Palaeologos Family- A Genealogical Review" ,Publishers Enterprises Group (PEG) Ltd, 1985

· Gauci, C.A.," A Guide to the Maltese Nobility", Publishers Enterprise Group (PEG) Ltd, Malta, 1986.

· Giles Ash, S., "The Nobility of Malta", Publishers Enterprises Group (PEG) Ltd, 1988. Tancarville 0928, 21 July 2006 (EST)

• • Agreement Its suggested that my notations of "By Permission...." should be taken out as it doesnt met the standards of Wikipedia. Though I have placed all acceptable references which can all be checked with the respected publishing houses, apart from one book, which was published in the 19th century. There are some nobility pages which are limited with data and those should be considered for deletion, not those where time and effort has been placed in ensuring they meet wikipedia. For gods sakes People read the articles history and see. Respect is hardly used here. Tancarville 0728, 29 July 2006 (EST)

• • Keep selectively I hope that Tancarville can go through what he has produced, and identify which persons or families are (and which are not) notable, with a view to removing the latter. Accordingly Keep for now. Peterkingiron 23:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

*Delete The problem I have with all of these pages is that Tancarville more or less considers them his/her own property. Any attempts - and I have made several - to correct the dreadful English and/or to trim the fat, as it were, have been and are reverted by the aforementioned user. As the articles stand, they are pretty dreadful. Marcus22 09:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• • Ignore most of the above. I shall correct myself straight away. In fact I just cannot tell who, which what or where has gone on with most of these articles and it may well be that what I have just said is not in fact the case. If so, my apologies Tancarville! Thus in view of my own ignorance on the detail I shall change my vote to Keep for now as per Peterkingiron. But please, Tancarville, cut out some of the waffle to tighten the articles up. regards Marcus22 09:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

returning to the discussion

Part of the basic problem is the notability of minor nobility, and the question of the importance of titles of this nature to titles elsewhere. I would like some elucidation of the overall structure of the nobility: how many people there are in each rank, and what size their estates may have been. I think this matters by common sense: Malta is a rather small place and they seems quite a lot of people. We've furthermore held that the rank of people and families corresponding to the English "Baronet" is not notable, and I wonder if this would be the nearest equivalent of some of them.DGG (talk) 16:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)