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. TexasAndroid (talk) 16:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas de Fleury and Francis Crawford of Lymond - Family Tree

[edit]

Contested prod. Deprodder considered my prod reason a suggestion to merge the contents, which it wasn't. To repeat: this fictional timeline is a form of excessive detail, a plot part that is not needed to understand either of the book series it is about. A short sentence in both articles ("This series and the other are connected by the characters of X in book A and Y in book B, which are aunt and niece" or something similar) would be more than sufficient. The actual family tree, with all dates, names, relationships, ... has no relevance to this connection of the two series, which is the only part worth mentioning here. IF you prefer abbreviations to support a nomination: this page fails WP:NOTE and WP:NOT#PLOT. Fram (talk) 14:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I haven't read the books and thus don't know in how the family tree is important / really not important at all (I read the nom). This seems to imply a general interest in such a table (WP:Notability, I love genealogy tables myself), but it also says "Please note that this Family Tree is the personal interpretation of Nancy Wright and others in the absence of an authorized version from Dorothy Dunnett and her publishers. [...] While I have endeavored to make it accurate it may contain errors." This sounds like WP:Original research, and we shouldn't have that on wikipedia. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 08:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article is comprised entirely of in-universe information. ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no real evidence of notability, no references outside of that "universe", and only one cite possible. Bearian (talk) 00:15, 3 September 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.