Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/English royal descent from Muhammad

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. While the numerical !votes are clearly in favor of deletion, the consensus is not so clear. I thought about it, consulting the relevant guidelines and policies, but in the end I have to say that concensus is for deletion, although not as clear as it might seem. So Why 12:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

English royal descent from Muhammad[edit]

Article doesn't appear verifiable and is not properly backed up by sources. Just one news article with information of questionable value and reliability. PAETBb (talk) 00:11, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even as a "best attempt", this article is nothing but speculation. Now if a certain speculation is notable, then it should be included, but the article right now does not assert any notability for this or any other speculated lineage linking the British royal family to Muhammad. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems to be article about something that didn't happen. If Wiki were too post an article about all the things that might have happened, that could have, well it would certainly have alot more articles. Dman727 (talk) 01:39, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The list that constitutes most of the text is considered wrong - according to the rest of the text. That leaves just about nothing. Brianyoumans (talk) 03:04, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No reliable sources are given. Dekisugi (talk) 07:56, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unverifiable, borderline WP:FRINGE. I feel Descent of Elizabeth II from the Franks suffers from many of the same problems, and should probably go as well. Comments? AlexTiefling (talk) 11:31, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree fully - there is no reason for the page to exist. No one doubts that Elizabeth II descends from the Franks, she and well over a half-a-billion other people. No scholar discusses her descent from Franks, as opposed to any other peoples, and the line given is just one of a million possible descents, arbitrarily chosen, connecting Elizabeth to the people at the top of the pedigree. Agricolae (talk) 03:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notability established the usual way. There's no reason to override the usual standards because people don't like the contents of the article. At least, I find such arguments unconvincing. Wily D 12:15, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not claiming it's not notable; I'm claiming it's not verifiable. The entire theory rests on the highly debatable identification of one particular Spanish queen with a possibly different Moorish princess. There's no proper source for this, and the article is essentially a piece of OR turning on this point. I would be very interested in a verifiable article on this topic, but this isn't one, and there's no prima facie evidence that one is currently possible. Perhaps it might be incorporated into the article on Zaida of Seville? AlexTiefling (talk) 12:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The truth of the theory is of course not verifiable. But the existence of the theory is verifiable, just like Apollo Moon Landing hoax conspiracy theories. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's very easily verifiable. In fact, I personally verified it before making a comment here. Wily D 16:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The fact that the claim is untrue does not mean that the article should be deleted. We have other articles on rumours and allegations, and as long as we clearly say that the claims are not established (which we do) then there is no problem. Otherwise articles like Flat earth and Apollo Moon Landing hoax conspiracy theories would have to be deleted. Note that the reference (though there is only one) clearly establishes that there are a number of people who do believe this stuff. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just added another reference to show that this is a widely believed, or at least discussed, matter. Even Burke's Peerage gives it some credence. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete quoting the article, "There have been attempts to establish the descent of the medieval English monarchs from the Islamic prophet Muhammad. None has yet been successful, and no such descent is generally accepted." This also doesn't provide any evidence that this theory passes WP:FRINGE. Theseeker4 (talk) 16:24, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This article (like the other one I mentioned above) is not really about the English/British royal family at all. I think it actually gives undue weight to a small minority within the many European royals and nobles who may be descended from Zaida of Seville and thus (perhaps) from the Prophet. I'd urge a merge with the article about Princess Zaida. AlexTiefling (talk) 17:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

undue weight does not prohibit an article about a fringe theory, otherwise Flat earth would be deleted. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:43, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't like Flat earth; it's like having an article about the geography of Zambia according to flat-earthers. There is nothing peculiar to the British monarchy in this article; it's an arbitrary slice through the genealogical web of European and North African nobility. The key facts, such as they are, have nothing to do with anyone English at all. It's effectively an indiscriminate collection of information. Do we need articles showing how the French, Bavarian, Prussian, Tuscan and Danish royal families were descended from the Prophet (or from Pepin the Short, or from a random Roman)? AlexTiefling (talk) 22:55, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I wouldn't say that this is impossible, since one can't decide about truth. I can only say it's highly speculative. This article doesn't gather the requirements to be in an encyclopedia, and therefore it should be deleted - unless there is a clear claim that the facts aren't confirmed, and that this is nothing but speculation. Plus, enough reference is needed to make it encyclopedic. I'd say make a new, more intelligently built artcicle. SydLyra (talk) 23:25, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Marginal genealogy sites can be fun -- it appears I am descended from Mohammed, Minerva and Thor. Speculative? Yes. Very. Properly caveated, I see no harm. And it is not close to "flat earth" at all. As for comparing to other articles, many are more speculative than this one. Collect (talk) 15:08, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment' The real question here is whether there is a notable controversy over this matter. I don't think a few idle speculations on the part of genealogists and a slow-news-day "gosh, everyone is related" news story constitute anything notable or even very interesting. Brianyoumans (talk) 17:20, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have modified the page to reflect the thought of modern historians, rather than uninformed genealogical hobbyists. If you think it is worth having a page just to say that a genealogy based on more wishful thinking than historical knowledge is frequently propagated, so be it, but I don't think it can be justified. Agricolae (talk) 03:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I had heard that there were claims for English kings descending from Muhammad. The claims are real, and having an article clearly stating (as it currently does) "There have been attempts to establish the descent of the medieval English monarchs from the Islamic prophet Muhammad. None has yet been successful, and no such descent is generally accepted" told me the claims are (at best) dubious. That was exactly the answer I needed. If the article wasn't there I wouldn't have had my question answered. Kiore (talk) 22:56, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - But why the English royal family and not, say, the Austrian? AlexTiefling (talk) 22:59, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If there is a fairly widespread myth that there is a connection like this for the Hapsburg family, then having an article either documenting or dismissing it would also be useful. Even if the erstwhile Austrian royal house doesn't merit an article, the British monarchy is still regnant in the 15 independent commonwealth realms and other current European monarchies such as Spain's descent from it it is possibly more interesting than other royal houses, but that might just be my Anglo-centric viewpoint. Kiore (talk) 23:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it appears to be a genuine fringe theory but - so far - there don't seem to be any identified reliable sources that demonstrate the mainstream view and would allow for an article that is both neutral and verifiable to be written which would give the proper weight to all relevant opinions. The lack of sourcing also makes it questionable whether the theory can be considered to meet the general notability criteria. Guest9999 (talk) 00:53, 17 November 2008 (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.