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 speedy keep. Nominator has withdrawn and no outstanding delete !votes remains. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 07:56, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kings of Israel and Judah family tree

[edit]

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

A redundant article that creates a new page out of a little info and a picture from Kings of Judah, Kings of Israel, and Kingdom of Israel (Samaria). Magister Scienta ^talk (Editor Review) 17:48, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:26, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this useful Help:Navigation tool. Note that WP:NOTPAPER. It is a valid article that can and should stand alone, apart from any other articles it may or may not be part of. It's an integral part of Category:Bible genealogy that is clearly allowed on WP that has many types of Family trees, see: Category:Family trees (of which Category:Bible genealogy is a sub-category.). Monarchs and monarchies are complex and the study and understanding of them is helped by such family trees, and that's why we have so many, such as: British monarchs' family tree; English monarchs family tree; Ottoman family tree; Monarchs of Spain family tree; Rulers of Russia family tree, etc etc etc. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 08:23, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not disputing that family trees are important, but the exact same info (with that very picture) is provided on other pages. Why not just redirect this page? Magister Scienta ^talk 14:13, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But those pages are not "Family tree" pages and this one is, so it can legitimately stand alone. IZAK (talk) 09:16, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Harmless and (combined with the template) might be useful as a navigation tool. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:08, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:13, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw After hearing the points made above I withdraw my nomination and ask for a speedy keep. Magister Scienta ^talk 02:42, 4 January 2012 (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.