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 No consensus, default to keep. Feel free to merge as well. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greek pedigree of Empress Sisi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Wikipedia does contain some genealogy, but it is not a database for obscure/especially particular descents. The problem with an article such as this is that it opens up opportunities for nearly infinite other similar articles. Articles of this nature have always been deleted before, for instance, Finnish ancestry of various royals, etc. While the information may be accurate, it is not encyclopedic. It is best deleted or userified. Charles 18:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following two articles: Vlach ancestry of royals of Romania and Medieval Albanian pedigree of Leka. The reasoning and situation is the same and the precedent is to delete these articles. Charles 18:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I think it is encyclopedic, It need to be cleaned up and made more useful. Wikipedia isn't an encyclopedia, except in name, anyway. Its a reference work that contains elements of an almanac, gazetteer, and other reference works. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 18:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless reliable sources can be provided. None given in article, and I can't find any. WP may or may not be an encyclopedia, depending on your understanding of that term, but it does have content policies, and this article doesn't meet them. Sam Clark 21:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Sissi's only connection to Greece was that it was one of her get-away hang-outs far from her dull husband and his stiff court. She spent most of her life fleeing her husband's empire, and her destinations number in the dozens. What next -- articles showing her Hungarian/French/Italian/Spanish etc "pedigree"? This descent could be mentioned in her main article. Lethiere 01:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• My vote to Delete also applies to Medieval Albanian pedigree of Leka and to Vlach ancestry of royals of Romania. Their smidgeon of national "blood" had zero influence on their ancestors' selection for these thrones. Certainly these descents merit brief mention in their articles, perhaps along with what genealogists call the "gateway" ancestors who, once identified, make it easy to trace back -- and to find all over the Internet. But they don't need or constitute independent articles. Lethiere 01:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The connection these articles are giving in each case is not random, but a clearly encyclopedic issue. The genealogical connection a monarch or royal family has with earlier rulers of their lands is a noteworthily encyclopedic point. They, their supporters and opposers use such things as arguments. (Vlach) ancestry, it is ancestry in Romanian lands, of Romanian royal family presents their attested genealogical connections (and on the other hand, some lacks thereof) to earlier rulers of Romania, such as princes of Valachia, Moldavia in Romania and the Asen Empire of Bulgarians and Vlachs in Lower Danubian lands. (There are encyclopedic knowledge here for example about Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom's descent from early Anglo-Saxon chieftains and Welsh princes and Alban rulers.) Genealogical connections of a royal family with hallowed predecessors in same country are also often made legends (such as king Zog I allegedly descending from Skanderbeg) or even fabricated genealogies (Charles VIII of Sweden allegedly through lords of Tofta from dynasty of St.Eric) whereby our encyclopedic task is justifiably to discriminate truths, attested descents, from mythical or fabricated ones. The genealogical connection of the claimed Leka I of Albania, an active pretender, attestedly to earlier rulers in Albania, if those connections are attested (as is this tree through his mother Geraldina) or not attested (such as the alleged descent through his father from Skanderbeg of Albania) are topics that pop up in political discussions, similarly with other analogous cases of royal inheritance/ legacy. We should provide information to readers who desire or need to check which of such claims are attestedly true and which must be or presumably are not true. Maed 02:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  

• The content of current articles is as itself no grounds for deletion (although there exists reliable, mentioned (in articles) genealogical trees, for example in geneaogics.org but also elsewhere, to back up these pages as they are now), if the topic itself is encyclopedic, and I have above given some grounds why the topics are not random and are justifiably encyclopedic. There is no precedent to delete these, contrary to what is claimed above (if an Ahnentafel has been possibly deleted, it is a different thing than deleting an article giving genealogical lineage of a pretennder/ claimant/ ruler from his/her early predecessors. Besides, even several Ahnentafels have not been deleted here, for example those of Charles XIV Gustav of Sweden, Harald V of Norway, Nicholas II of Russia, Elizabeth II), although someone could think they are "random information" and not serving the useful purpose of differencing lies and truths in claims of royal legacy from and within a country. Maed 02:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  
• At the very least, I want this huge work I made from genealogical sources, to be preserved in my user pages, to be my memoranda for future checking when I need to edit royalist articles, to assess their claims of descents. Maed 01:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The difference between these articles and ahnentafels is that these articles only show select ancestry that can be multiplied many times over. Why not an Armenian ancestry of Diana, Princess of Wales? Or a Canadian ancestry of Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall? It can go on and on and on... The ahnentafels, on the other hand, equally represent ancestry back to a certain point without singling out a line that can later be multiplied into various other articles. Charles 04:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• If a genealogical lineage (in your words, select ancestry) is relevant to the subject's life, position, or other issue, that actually is encyclopedic knowledge, as positively argued by several editors in this page (even Lethiere who votes against here). Wikipedia can very well include such information. (For example, I cannot find much justification for Diana's descent from Americans, but much justification for presenting her descent from, say, earlier princesses of Wales, if such happens to exist in reliable sources. Same probable no with Canadian ancestry of Camilla, if exists, whereas for example her possible descent from earlier duchesses and countesses of Cornwall would be justified if exists.) And, by the way, can you provide any clear evidence that articles about people's genealogical lineages back to their some relevant ancestry have actually been deleted through a proper AfD procedure here; you claimed such with your allegation of "precedent". I got information that such is not the case and that the nomination here misrepresents. Assuming good faith, I give you opportunity to prove your allegation. Maed 04:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An article on either the Finnish ancestry of the king-elect of Finland or the Emperors of Russia as Grand Dukes of Finland come to mind. In particular, there was a series of articles by ObRoy. Mad King Ludwig idolized a French king, could we not make an article about his French ancestry? Charles 05:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please show proper links, to the names of the allegedly deleted articles, and their AfD pages. As far as a search of WP pages (keywords 'finnish ancestry king finland', search for both namespace and WP project space) shows, there has never been an article of Finnish ancestry of elected king of Finland (can you tell us what is the said person's actual Finnish ancestry?). It seems there exists an Ahnentafel of his son (and it literaly exists, an AfD did not result in deletion) where subject is a son (a prince), not the elected king himself. Thus, prove your allegation - vague allegations of some deletion whose very name even remains unclear are not evidence of precedent. And, there clearly still exists at least one article about Russian tsars as Grand Dukes of Finland, see List of Finnish monarchs#Grand Duchy of Finland in Russian Empire 1809-1917, where they are listed; are you suggesting it should be deleted. And, what come to Louis II of Bavaria, if that really is an attested fact (who French king?), there might very well emerge such an article, if there exists an attested genealogical descent. Note that it is often undesirable to put lengthy genealogical lineages to biography articles, but another article of that specific subject serves well as a linked material of a biography here. Maed 05:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The article as it stands is a dreadful mess, but the topic itself is perfectly encyclopaedic. Adam 02:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all three articles why do these need separate articles? Isn't there a page about these people already? There seems to be lots of OR in here. --SandyDancer 13:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Merge with Sisi and Leka - neither article is so long that a merge is inappropriate. I'm not sure what to do about the more generic article - I must admit, the topic is encyclopaedic, and the information is verifiable, though I'm not thrilled it all comes from the same source. WilyD 14:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and merge and cleanup all three articles, perhaps it will be more encyclopedic Kmorozov 07:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and tidy up. For instance, the heading Leka, would need to be more clear as to which Leka it refers.--Couter-revolutionary 17:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  These articles don't cut it as stand-alone articles. As I said earlier, it opens up the possibilities for countless contrived articles. If anything, send to the user space or merge in the main sCharles 17:40, 10 December 2006 (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.