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 Keep, albeit with many favouring a merger. This closure does not prevent or preclude merging if a better article would be the product. kingboyk 09:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, without any sources it fits WP:V, fork minus POV, and the formating and composition is so bad that I don't think anything of it is salvagable. Jersey Devil 04:08, 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 16:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Weatherman90 04:30, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP is not Genealogical entries Esquizombi 04:31, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Seems like you made that one up. Wikipedia does have family trees. I asked about it on the Village Pump about a month ago in my own vain attempt to get this deleted. Seems like family trees are acceptable. Though non-notable family trees (which this is not, Ali is certainly a notable figure) may be deleted under non-notability. I will see if I can find the village pump link. Pepsidrinka 04:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment No, I didn't make it up, thank you - follow the link and you'll find " Wikipedia articles are not: [...] Genealogical entries, or phonebook entries. Biography articles should only be for people with some sort of fame, achievement, or perhaps notoriety. One measure of achievement is whether someone has been featured in several external sources (on or off-line). Relatively unimportant people may be mentioned within other articles (e.g. Ronald Gay in Persecution of gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and the transgendered). See m:Wikipeople for a proposed genealogical/biographical dictionary project." Esquizombi 04:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I stand corrected - sort of. It does say that "biography article should only be for people with some sort of fame" and Ali clearly qualifies. I do however maintain that there seems to be some consensus that certain family trees belong on Wikipedia. See Family_tree_of_the_Eighteenth_dynasty_of_Egypt as one link I found through a quick search. Pepsidrinka 04:45, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Ali clearly qualifies for a biography article, but I don't read that policy as saying that genealogical entries are OK for the famous. I posted on the talk page seeking clarification. Esquizombi 07:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and cleanup needs major attention, but the information is certainly salvagable if it can be verified. There a heaps of family tree articles on Wikipedia .Bobby1011 04:47, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The family relationships around Ali are particularly important. Does need a lot of cleanup, though. bikeable (talk) 05:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and cleanup. Ali's family tree consists of some of the most important people in Shi'a Islam (e.g., Fatimah Zahra, Hasan ibn Ali, Husayn ibn Ali, Muhammad) that this is clearly a family tree of a notable person. Pepsidrinka 05:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and cleanup, well this is encyclopedic and Ali's family is considered important. --Terence Ong 06:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep because it's too long to merge. Gazpacho 10:41, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as suggested by MLA. Gazpacho 18:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Descendants of Ali ibn Abi Talib. The family tree itself needs to be part of an article about the lineage of Ali. The lineage is highly notable. MLA 11:00, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per MLA. The format of the Descendants article is better. The final article might be titled "Ali ibn Ali Talib family tree" in the manner of other family-tree articles, and would plug the new information from the AfD article into the format of the Descendants article. This would suffice until a handier illustration (again in the manner of other family tree articles) can be created. There is a guide for creating such tree diagrams here: User:Muriel_Gottrop#Family trees Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 11:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per all See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Family tree of Uthman ibn Affan --Striver 15:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep important, and the Ali article is already very long. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 15:36, 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 15:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Jersey Devil stop trying to make a Point -Irishpunktom\^talk 16:16, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Descendants of Ali ibn Abi Talib -- much of it is duplicate. gren グレン 18:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• delete genealogy is not appropriate for Wikipedia. while it does say, as noted above, that biographies should only be of notable people, this is not a biography. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 20:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep Notable familly tree. Nigelthefish 16:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Descendants of Ali ibn Abi Talib or, better still, Ali ibn Abi Talib. Details of someone's family tree are more informative to the reader in the context of the person, not as a web of satellite nanoarticles. This is the second article about this person's family tree. Why the duplication? Or is the master plan to have Parents of Ali ibn Abi Talib, Siblings of Ali ibn Abi Talib, First Cousins of Ali ibn Abi Talib, ...? Weregerbil 22:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to a new First Muslim Dynasty article because the Family Tree of Ali depends on the relationships of the other members to one individual (Ali), however he was not a separate dynast but the fourth in a line of Caliphs. The most appropriate family tree would be a family tree centred on Muhammad and the first four Caliphs because these five individuals formed the first Muslim "Dynasty", especially as they were all closely related. I note Striver keeps highlighting the Eighteenth Dynasty of Egypt but this is not a correct comparison as the Dynasty traces a lineage of Pharaohs based on current information. 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. Green Giant 00:56, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Eagle^talk 01:09, 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.