Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Family tree of Uthman ibn Affan

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 yes! We have no consensus / we have no consensus today! fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Family tree of Uthman ibn Affan[edit]

Delete Original research and WP:V (no sources), as it is the formating and composition is so bad that nothing is really salvagable. Jersey Devil 04:13, 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 16:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Weatherman90 04:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP is not Genealogical entries. The essential facts, if properly sourced, belong in Uthman. Esquizombi 04:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- If there's anything worth salvaging, it belongs in the Uthman article. Reyk 04:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Uthman is not as important, or have the same level of important descendant that Ali had (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Family tree of Ali. Pepsidrinka 05:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research, Uthman is not so important as Ali. --Ter e nc e Ong 06:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no genealogy database. Gazpacho 10:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't have the same notability as Ali's lineage MLA 11:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Family tree of Ali, List of family trees and Family_tree_of_the_Eighteenth_dynasty_of_Egypt, Uthman is among the third Sunni Caliph and very notable. --Striver 15:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Uthman ibn Affan where it can have it's own section. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 15:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Maltese nobility: "While 'Wikipedia is not a genealogy database', genealogy of nobility and royalty is considered encyclopedic." - Rynne 15:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Note that the Maltese nobility article is part of Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Conclusions, which is a guideline and not policy. If exceptions are going to be made to WP is not Genealogical entries questions of policy on genealogy and organization of and context for genealogical articles need to be addressed. See also m:Wikipeople, inactive WikiProject Genealogy and http://wikitree.org Esquizombi 23:30, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See bottom half of Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam:The Muslim Guild/Articles for deletion and also this:

--Striver 15:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Jersey Devil stop trying to make a Point -Irishpunktom\^talk 16:16, 16 March 2006

(UTC)

Keep and expand or merge at Uthman. This person's family tree is of great historical importance. Smerdis of Tlön 16:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand; consider merger or prominent link to this page in Uthman article. WP:POINT is invoked; sorry, but it matters immensely to the history of Islam what the exact geneaologies are. Alba 17:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and if there are any redundant articles like "Descendants of Uthman" like there were for Ali then merge them in... It's not great to have this in its own article... but... it's better than clogging up the Uthman page. gren グレン 18:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per anonym --Oscar Arias 18:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete WP:NOT genealogical entries are not appropriate for Wikipedia. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 20:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep and Expand: Third Caliph of Islam. --Falcon007 20:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per ~~User:Pepsidrinka~~ someone other than User:Pepsidrinka :x — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 23:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Take note that I voted to delete this article so your justification is quite puzzling. Pepsidrinka 21:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand or merge as per Smerdis of Tlön Dlyons493 Talk 22:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOR --Khoikhoi 06:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: what in there is original research? Ardric47 00:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move to a new First Muslim Dynasty article because the Family tree of Uthman ibn Affan depends on the relationships of the other members to one individual (Uthman) in the same way as the Family tree of Ali. However he was not a separate dynast but the third in a line of Caliphs, so the appropriate family tree would be centred on Muhammad and the first four Caliphs because these five individuals formed the first Muslim "Dynasty", especially as they were all closely related. Striver keeps highlighting the Eighteenth Dynasty of Egypt but this Dynasty traces a lineage of Pharaohs and is not about breaking up dynasties into nano-lineages. Striver's line of thought would presumably include Family Tree of Elizabeth II, Family Tree of Prince Charles, Family Tree of Prince William etcetera when the appropriate article would be House of Windsor or British Royal Family. Green Giant 00:56, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move per Green Giant. A much better way for a reader to understand a genealogical tree than individual nodes for each person or random persons in the tree. Weregerbil 08:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Move/Merge per Green Giant et al. As it stands, current art is litle more than stub, if WP:V (sources ?), then suit as insert in art. on Uthman himself. Please also see my comments re Author's UnWiki-like attitude in another AFD discussion. WiKinny 18:57, 22 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.