Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fictional genealogy

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. Courcelles 02:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional genealogy[edit]

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

Unsourced article serves no purpose other than wp:listcruft. Sottolacqua (talk) 13:44, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - seriously listcruft information and nothing in that list is sourced. It is just an indiscriminate list of information. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 14:12, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seriously, this is a wholly indiscriminate list that would have no end in sight. It would include the genealogies of every book, movie, film, television family ever created. In my opinion, it has no purpose here. Cindamuse (talk) 18:17, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a list which would probably be larger than Wikipedia if ever completed. An article about academic analyses of genealogy in literature might not go so amiss under the title, but this... The Rhymesmith (talk) 23:54, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with the specific caveat that if someone wants to write an article about the concepts of dyasties in fiction, it would be welcome at this name. While most "indiscriminate info" arguments raised at AfD discussions are nonsense, this one actually has merit: What do the McDucks, the Sopranos, and House Atreides really have in common? Jclemens (talk) 00:26, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with Jclemens that some indiscriminate claims are nonsense, but this is a textbook case. No third-party sources to WP:verify notability of this concept. Wikipedia isn't supposed to be the first place you cover a topic, even if you can assemble a few things we know exist (like the Sopranos family and the McDucks family). If a reliable source directly covers the whole topic then recreate the article or list. But until then it should remain deleted. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:57, 18 August 2010 (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.