Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Descendants of Charlemagne

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Cbrown1023 22:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Descendants of Charlemagne

Descendants of Charlemagne (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Indiscriminate list with no encyclopaedic purpose. Wikipedia is not a genealogy. I also nested the following similar articles:

  • Descendants of Pepin of Vermandois
  • Descendants of Lothair II
  • Descendants of Louis II
  • Descendants of Reginar I of Hainaut
  • Descendants of Ranulf I of Poitiers
  • Descendants of Baldwin II of Flanders
  • Descendants of Arnulf of Bavaria
  • Descendants of Berengar and Willa
  • Descendants of Arnulf I of Flanders and Adele of Vermandois
  • Descendants of Robert of Vermandois
  • Descendants of Adalbert I of Vermandois and Gerberga of Lorraine
  • Descendants of Luitgarde of Vermandois
  • Descendants of Hugh the Great

Srnec 17:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:NOT. /Blaxthos 17:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. So Charlemagne had a whopping lot of descendants. So what? One in every 200 human beings is descended from Genghis Khan. RGTraynor 18:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Probably more than that. I've seen research that asserts that all living humans of European ancestry are descended from Charlemagne. (That'd make a hell of a wiki list, wouldn't it?) Here's an example. -- Bpmullins | Talk 19:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Is it possible to speedily delete all similar articles (if this nomination passes...) even though I didn't list them here? Articles like Descendants of Ranulf I of Poitiers. There's a whole lot of them a now-inactive editor created a while back. Srnec 20:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
CSD on what grounds? RGTraynor 20:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Forget it, I am in the process of integrating the deletion requests here. These articles are even less notable than the Charlemagne one. Srnec 20:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and good riddance. Besides that every notable descendant of aforesaid has an article, the rest is just that: not notable Alf photoman 22:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information. We are also not a genealogy tree. Finally, how can we prove and source ALL of this, ever? They didn't exactly take perfect records in those days, and even if they did, many of them have been lost or corrupted with time. ♠PMC♠ 22:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This list is not indiscriminate; it is precisely the opposite. The criterion for inclusion in the list is quite clearly stated and respected. Wikipedia proscribes genealogies of people who are not noteworthy; Charlemagne is very definitely noteworthy, and his descendants are noteworthy as well. In fact, as User:Alf photoman stated, many deservedly have their own articles. This list organizes information about this group of people who are important in European history, and adds information that is not available in a category (such as names of people who don't have articles, names of spouses etc.). Important and encyclopedic. Fg2 07:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
It is indiscriminate because, as another editor noted, the descendants of Charlemagne are innumerable and not completely known. It is not unlikely that I am a descendant of Charlemagne, but I do not belong on any Wikipedia list. The descendants of Charlemagne can be found at their respective articles, which typically list the subjects wives and concubines and children. Charlemagne and his descendants can be traced through the articles by any intelligent person. Besides, the format of the list is poor and the reseach is solely based on one website. What other articles, by the way, would link to it? Names of nonnotable folks are present in the articles of those notable enough to deserve articles, no genealogy needed. Srnec 03:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep There's precedent for having lists like this in an encyclopedia. Given the importance of genealogy in the legitimation of medieval rulers, it's not really fair to say that it's just a collection of indiscriminate information. Citation needs to be religious, though, and notability guidelines should apply or it runs the risk of turning into a vanity page for modern people claiming descent from Charlemagne. Dppowell 17:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete there may be precedent for having these sorts of articles in a generic encyclopedia, but indiscriminate genealogical cruft is WP:NOT material. Apart from anything else, these articles are cribbed from a website, missing WP:V as well. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a place for this type of genealogical information. It will necessarily have to be arbitrarily limited to a small number of generations, as each subsequent generation will multiply in size almost exponentially. Indeed, interestingly enough my mother's family can trace itself to Charlemagne. Almost everyone can trace their family back to important individuals, and the title of this article, at least, appears to aim for being exhaustive. If the relationship of each individual to Charlemagne is notable then have that information in their articles. This, however, is unmaintainable. --The Way 06:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • A proposal Further narrow the focus by renaming article "Descendants of Charlemagne to the fifth generation." Remove sixth and seventh generations from the list. This removes any problem of living or innumerable people belonging in the list. It limits the list to about 150 people, which is quite manageable. Fg2 07:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment This might be acceptable. I'm still not sure about whether we need a genealogical account of historical figures but if this was done I could support it. --The Way 07:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I gave it a try, moving the later generations to the discussion page, and noting in the opening sentence that the list extends to the fifth generation. Fg2 07:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • strong keepThis is a good compilation. The data is to be sure obtainable by someone at a major library, but most readers of WP are not. It is reasonable to want to know about descendants of the most notable kings &c, & this is the place.
'even better limit it to the 5th --not that the tenth, or the twentieth , would get us to living people--but the earlier pt is an acceptable compromise. DGG 06:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a genealogical directory. The data is obtainable on Wikipedia as it is! Why do we need this list (which is poorly formated to boot) to organise it? Surely you believe a list of "Descendants of Berengar II and Willa" is worthless? Srnec 19:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all Per the Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not policy, particularly point 2 of the Wikipedia is not a directory section. These are contrary to policy. WP:USEFUL and WP:ILIKEIT do not trump policy. GRBerry 03:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete All per nom. I wonder what Pippen the Hunch Back would think of this list. Davidpdx 10:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
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.