Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eight lines of descent of John Prescott, founder of Lancaster, Massachusetts, 1645, from Alfred the Great, King of England, 871-901

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. Michig (talk) 07:25, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eight lines of descent of John Prescott, founder of Lancaster, Massachusetts, 1645, from Alfred the Great, King of England, 871-901[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't see anything about this book that makes it notable. All references on the page are either to the book itself, or fall within a list on the page of genealogical studies that cite the book as a source, and a Google Books search returns similar results, the book and 10 matches that cite the book. I could find no evidence of discussion of it as a work by any source - no reviews or other summaries. Thus the book seems to fail Wikipedia:Notability (books), and further, given the lack of such a summary, it clearly represents WP:OR, the compiler seemingly just taking a book off their shelf and mostly just typing up the table of contents. There is nothing of value to merge. Agricolae (talk) 00:42, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additional note - it was created by a now-blocked sock. Agricolae (talk) 00:50, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 00:50, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We would need reviews of this work to show it is notable. Of Weis's works, this is not even one of the more notable ones.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:09, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete cant see anything noteworthy in this, wikipedia is not a family history site. MilborneOne (talk) 11:38, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As stated above, Wikipedia is not some sort of ancestry site. Exemplo347 (talk) 16:08, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
DElete -- This is not even a decent genealogy; even if it was it would not belong in WP. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:49, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:14, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - I think Wikipedia can often include information and articles that might be also found on a family history site. I also think microhistories and genealogical studies can be reliable sources. I'm not an expert on the issue, and Peterkingiron may be right that this is not well researched genealogy, but there is no reason an article about a genealogical book couldn't be suitable for inclusion in wikipedia. However, this article does not satisfy NPOV in that it does not give any discussion about the quality of the work or even the context in which it is cited (are the citations favorable? Do they assume credibility with or without evidence?), merely stating that the book exists and is cited. A review of the book or at least a discussion of the quality of research in the book would be helpful. Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:49, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Its accuracy is irrelevant. The genealogy in The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail is complete nonsense, but the book is (regrettably) notable nonetheless. The problem with this book is not whether or not it is inaccurate, but that it is completely non-notable, failing the most basic criteria of WP:NBOOK. Unlike Weis' well-known Ancestral Roots and Magna Carta Sureties and less well-known Colonial Clergy works, the complete obscurity of this book would make any discussion of its quality WP:OR. Agricolae (talk) 22:50, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - we are not a web host for genealogists for profit. We are a charity. Bearian (talk) 18:23, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is for profit, the author being long-dead and the findings of the book largely superseded. It looks to me like 'here is a book about my favorite ancestor', which is also what Wikipedia is not. Agricolae (talk) 21:05, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 9 April 2017 (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.