Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Family tree of Shaiba ibn Hashim
- 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 of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 00:22, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Does not meet WP:V and is unencyclopedic. Jersey Devil 06:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment User Jersey Devil appears to be on the war path against User Striver by proposing all articles created by the latter for deletion. Sad. Lambiam 17:00, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Shaiba ibn Hashim isn't important on his own to merit a family tree. Pepsidrinka 07:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, no genealogy database. Gazpacho 10:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Family tree of Uthman ibn Affan, see bottom half of Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam:The Muslim Guild/Articles for deletion--Striver 15:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Jersey Devil stop trying to make a Point -Irishpunktom\talk 16:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- delete WP:NOT wikipedia is not a genealogy tree Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 21:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Maltese nobility:
- "While 'Wikipedia is not a genealogy database', genealogy of nobility and royalty is considered encyclopedic."
Just read Shaiba ibn Hashim, all of it, and then tell me he is not royalty or something comparable. --Striver 01:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
List of family trees and Family_tree_of_the_Eighteenth_dynasty_of_Egypt --Striver 02:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to a new First Muslim Dynasty article for similar reasons I have given in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Family tree of Ali and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Family tree of Uthman ibn Affan. Mainly none of these individuals was a separate dynasty on their own but all were part of the first Muslim Dynasty centred on Muhammad and the first four Caliphs. Striver, you need to accept that family trees link related individuals but are not normally focussed on a single notable individual when there are other notable individuals around them. The Eighteenth Dynasty is an excellent example of a precise and clear presentation of a family tree despite there being a lack of information on the dynasty. By the way in line with your comparison, as Family tree of Shaiba ibn Hashim is centred on Shaiba, would you also claim there is an individual known as Eighteenth Dynasty for the relevant Egyptian family tree? Green Giant 01:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Move per Green Giant and all the other Family Tree of Xyz AfDs. Weregerbil 08:42, 21 March 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.