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 merge to Roosevelt family. Spartaz Humbug! 07:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roosevelt Coat of Arms

[edit]
Roosevelt Coat of Arms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Note that the person mentioned in the caption is Alexander Liptak, and the person who did most of the edits on the page, as well as put the content on the Roosevelt disambiguation, has the handle "Xanderliptak" Purplebackpack89 (talk) 06:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, the image does match the blazon provided by the source, please read the source again. I agree an article dedicated solely to the coat of arms of those named Roosevelt is unnecessary. Perhaps renaming the article to ‘Roosevelt (surname)’ would be appropriate and also fall in line with other articles like Bewick, Kennedy (surname) and so on. I simply find it odd to have an article named ‘X’ that has a series of links, then have a mirror article named ‘X (surname)’ that has all the same links with only an additional four or five small paragraphs. But, so be it. ‡ XANDERLIPTAK 18:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, I did read the source, and the image in our article is not represented there. Each of the four examples from the source holds elements that are combined in the image here - very well, I add - but my concern was the synthesis of the various elements, the stylistic decision regarding the helmet (oriented differently than in the examples, for instance), and the stylistic decisions regarding the shields at the bottom (combining two shields with a split banner, rather than the individual shield+banner shown in two different examples, neither of which use the shield designs present in our article's image). It bumps up against WP:SYN and WP:OR. I very specifically did not recommend Delete, above - but nor have I said Keep. I need to think about it, but there are valid concerns here. Enough to torpedo the article? I don't know. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 01:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the source, then you saw the blazon reads, “Argent upon a grassy mound a rose bush proper bearing three roses Gules barbed and seeded proper.” That is what is presented in the painting I provided. As you can tell by the differing images in the source, styling is irrelevant so long as the blazon is met. ‡ XANDERLIPTAK 03:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Key word there is "the painting I provided". I nommed this partly because I felt that it might have been created to promote the painting, and partly for Exact's reasons of notablity and truthiness Purplebackpack89 (talk) 03:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did not create the history of the Roosevelt families to promote a painting. Rather, I made the painting to illustrate a part of Roosevelt history. Having an article to explain the origins and history of a surname is not a new or uncommon idea to Wikipedia, see List of most common surnames. I am also not setting out to delete images and replace them with my own, but found certain articles without an emblazon or a full emblazon, which I am able to provide. However, as you may be able to tell, they do take some time to create, so, like any artist, I would appreciate the recognition of my efforts. Also a point, proper citation requires paintings and images to note the artist, even ones in the public domain. While this may have fallen wayside with Google images and photo hosting, hotlinking and so forth where the details of an image have been lost, it does not mitigate the responsibility to cite an author of any work when appropriate. ‡ XANDERLIPTAK 04:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Xanderliptak, none of coats of arms you've uploaded into articles are actually 'free' (you've put restrictions on them "No commercial use of the image is allowed without expressed permission from the aforementioned author"). I'm pretty sure they need to be completely free, or else you need provide a 'non free rationale' (Wikipedia:Non-free content). I'm not sure such a rationale will float though, any one of us can easily create these coats of arms if we have a reliable blazon in front of us. I think maybe it isn't such a good idea to add content to a wikipedia article with the intent of receiving some sort of recognition within the article. Isn't that kinda a conflict of interest?--Breandán MacAmhlaidh (talk) 07:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The image is not up for deletion, the Roosevelt page is. I would not object to anyone creating a completely free image and thus replacing mine, but I still insist a surname page be created for Roosevelt. The images in the AHS source are from the 20th century, so are not themselves free images either. So, while there would be limited licensing on those black and white images, I provided a colour version in the same measure; I would think that an upgrade to a nonfree black and white. No, I do not release images for commercial use, but I do for any academic use. If I was truly trying to promote myself, I would release the images to be used by commercial interests, such as a printing company or news media, as attribution would still apply and such companies would be required to print my name whenever the image is used. At best, as I doubt coat of arms are even something highly researched on Wikipedia, my name will be known amongst 3rd grade students researching a biographical paper and perhaps think a coat of arms is cool enough to print off and attach at the end of their essay. ‡ XANDERLIPTAK 09:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found that we do have a free Kennedy coat of arms, so i re-placed yours with that one. As far as i know, the only notable Roosevelt coat of arms is the one of the American family. That is already covered in an easily manageable sub-sections in Roosevelt Family, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Theodore Roosevelt. Do we really need a another article to show it off? It doesn't seem like it. The family's coat of arms is covered in the family article. It seems that a 'surname' article with only one line devoted to the surname, and the rest devoted to the same arms and picture, is something like what is covered at WP:Coatrack. An article supposedly about one thing but really about displaying something else.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 06:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An encyclopedia is not meant to include only the most notable, otherwise there would be no need for an Robert Kennedy article because of John Kennedy, no World War I article because of World War II. There are many misconceptions about heraldry, and my efforts are to dispel them here in Wikipedia where I have the opportunity to. When people google "Smith coat of arms," they several companies giving false information in the hope of making a profit; often, these people get taken for upwards of $1000 because they are poorly informed. I have added coat of arms sections to famous people so that persons searching amongst Wikipedia will perhaps retain the idea that this wiki is a good place to search out heraldic information later. I have added heraldry information to surname articles, and would like to see other surname articles include or be created so as to include the same, so that people will be better informed about the whole system. Yes, I know that many people have no concern for it, and that those discussing it here may not view family histories and heraldry as important, but others do. That should be enough to include it. There is a very detailed article on the Smith name, and a very detailed one on heraldry, which should provide enough of a precedence to allow for a Roosevelt surname page and for it to include armorial displays. ‡ XANDERLIPTAK 10:39, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is a problem with adding info on the heraldry of notable people or families. That's something we should try to include and improve. I meant adding the exact same information in multiple articles. Like the Roosevelt stuff is the exact same thing in four articles (two one individuals, one on the family, and this one). Since the family and members of it seem to be the possessors of the only notable coats of arms, why not just merge this article with the family article? The surname Kennedy, i think, is a little different because there are several notable families (like the unrelated Irish and Scottish clans and the American family) which are known to use different heraldry. So it kind of makes sense to me that we could briefly cover the differences and that in a name article.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 09:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are numerous pages in Category:Polish coats of arms that are dedicated to a coat of arms alone, and usually have nothing more than an image and a few sentences. I am proposing a surname page that would include history and coat of arms and so forth. No, I did not come with much more than two coat of arms and an origin, but there are other surname pages (and those Polish heraldry articles) that exist freely with far less than what I have written; also, as Wikipedia is an add what you know and interests you, other information will come as it pleases people. The whole system is repetitive, and can not be helped. You have the individual’s page that then gets summarized for his family’s page which then links to the family branch’s page which links to the surname page which links to the disambiguation page; they all have the same information and simply become more generalized the further out they get. Those that have issue with a Roosevelt surname page being to small in scope to only have room to eventually include origin, migration, history and heraldry should first concern themselves with riding Wikipedia of the Luk coat of arms type articles. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 13:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 20:25, 13 November 2009 (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.
More