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. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 21:04, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fantasy genealogy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Not a coherent topic, combining what appears to be a User-generated WP:DICDEF with an arbitrary listing of examples that basically amount to 'anything genealogical and not true'.

It begins by defining the term, but for this it cites an entire book without page number, that as far as I can tell from Google Books snippets does not give any such definition or even include the term in its text (it does once refer to "genealogical fantasies" without a specific definitition distinct from those of the two words being used consecutively). The second paragraph seems to be an entirely editor-generated, unfocussed, description of some of the instances where such genealogies arise, but ignoring entire categories that are then included in the list of examples that follows. Finally we have arbitrarily-selected examples of untrue genealogies that combines everything from the sociopolitically-motivated medieval monarchical origin legends, to modern genealogical fraudsters making things up to bilk clients, to honest mistakes and exaggerations, to the relationships created by fiction authors to connect people in their fictional worlds. These are each distinct phenomena, only sharing the characteristics of being genealogical and not being true.

The citations are mostly to self-published or wiki material, with only three seemingly-reliable sources cited, of which two fail verification and the third doesn't refer to the example it is supporting as a 'fantasy genealogy'.

That some genealogies incorporate untrue information for a range of reasons is not something that needs a Wikipedia page to explain, any more than 'mathematical errors', or 'broken tools', and even if it did, this would not be that page. Agricolae (talk) 19:03, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Royalty and nobility. Agricolae (talk) 19:03, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the nom's description as "not a coherent topic". The first example given is Queen Elizabeth II, about whom the article says, "Chroniclers of Germanic peoples traced the ancestry of their kings back to the god Wōden (Odin). If such descents were true, Queen Elizabeth II would be a descendant of Woden, via the kings of Wessex." However, the cited source ([1]) does not mention Elizabeth II in connection with Odin. This seems to be original research, as Elizabeth II may be descended from the kings of Wessex, while medieval writers may have claimed that the kings of Wessex were descended from Odin, that does not mean that anyone actually claims that Elizabeth is descended from Odin. The article later says, "Fraudulent genealogies are created through honest mistakes, exaggerations, and deceit." How could a fraudulent genealogy be created from honest mistakes? An incorrect genealogy, yes, but not a truly fraudulent one. The article also mentions fictional genealogies from the fantasy works of J. R. R. Tolkien, J. K. Rowling, and George R. R. Martin, but has nothing substantive to say about them except that, indeed, such genealogies were created in connection with the relevant novels. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:03, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- This is a real topic. It is quite common for ancient genealogies to have elements in them that are ancient fabrications. This applies to all the Anglo-Saxon royal dynasties. These make the earliest known ancestor a son of a god, often Woden. In the same way some Welsh genealogies have purported links to Roman Emperors (such as Magnus Maximus) or to earlier emperors. One traces the genealogy back to a cousin of Jesus Christ. It is a well known phenomenon that links will be fabricated by genealogical historians to make the subject appear more important. This is a variety of myth. Mythical genealogies might be a more appropriate title, which would require modern fiction (Middle Earth, Harry Potter, etc.) to be purged (or split off) the article. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:05, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is a well known phenomenon. As is the issue of fraud in genealogy, and error in genealogy, and exaggeration in genealogy, and genealogies of fictional families. For that metter the type of 'mythical' genealogies you are describing also exists in numerous flavors, e.g. linking to gods, prophets or figures from antiquity; de novo dynasties linking to the prior ruling families; political genealogies created to portray new unrelated allies as kinsmen; pedigrees full of eponymous ancestors of trabes and ethnicities to show that the people are really all one blood, etc.). The problem with this page is not that genealogies that are not reflect historical reality don't exist. It is that it doesn't all belong together under the banner 'fantasy genealogy', and the material provided on any one topic that is currently on this page is of such poor quality that any more focussed article woulld need to start from scratch anyhow (and not under this namespace, which is indeed used by some genealogists, but only in a non-specific manner to express that a genealogy under consideration is bull$#!t in a more polite manner - it has no specific definition beyond 'nonsense' of one form or another). Agricolae (talk) 23:11, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It doesn't make sense to combine two topics: the genealogies of fictional characters from novels, with the claimed descents of certain princes from various gods. Noel S McFerran (talk) 20:39, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It might be notable enough to warrant a mention somewhere else (and often are on the examples previously mentioned), but the article itself is wanting, and without much in the way of substance having been added, deletion seems the most reasonable course of action. Not to mention that the "Examples" seem to be a mess between fraudulent genealogies and fictional genealogies. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 13:05, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. This is really two distinct topics: family trees in the fantasy genre, and mythic origins of royalty. In effect, it is original research. Bearian (talk) 19:27, 26 May 2022 (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.