- 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. Kurykh ( talk) 01:02, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Descendants of Adam and Eve
AfDs for this article:
- Descendants of Adam and Eve ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:RNPOV, WP:NOTGENEALOGY, WP:NOTWEBHOST, WP:WPNOTRS, WP:NOTRELIABLE. A genealogy that relies only on questionable primary sources, does not distinguish various traditions, does not discuss related mythology, theology or archaeology. Awkward to use or edit, may need a rewrite. Redundant with more notable and better presented Genealogies of Genesis, Abraham's family tree, Generations of Noah, List of minor biblical figures, A–K PaleoNeonate ( talk) 18:58, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. PaleoNeonate ( talk) 19:06, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. PaleoNeonate ( talk) 19:06, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. PaleoNeonate ( talk) 19:06, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. PaleoNeonate ( talk) 19:06, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. PaleoNeonate ( talk) 19:06, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. PaleoNeonate ( talk) 19:06, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been mentioned at Talk:Descendants_of_Adam_and_Eve PaleoNeonate ( talk) 19:13, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been mentioned at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Religion PaleoNeonate ( talk) 19:13, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been mentioned at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_History PaleoNeonate ( talk) 19:13, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been mentioned at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Christianity PaleoNeonate ( talk) 19:13, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been mentioned at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Judaism PaleoNeonate ( talk) 19:13, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been mentioned at User_talk:AMK152 (reason: article creator) PaleoNeonate ( talk) 19:13, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been mentioned at User_talk:PiCo (reason: editor who suggested that it be deleted) PaleoNeonate ( talk) 19:13, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been mentioned at User_talk:Doug_Weller (reason: recently active on talk page) PaleoNeonate ( talk) 19:13, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been mentioned at User_talk:It4history (reason: SPA, contributed significant content) PaleoNeonate ( talk) 19:13, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:14, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bible-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:14, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- Weak Delete One of the comments from the previous AfD discussion is informative: "a fairly efficient way of showing the relationship between the progeny of Adam and Eve as stated in the Bible; this one goes 55 generations, although there's room for more (Jesus was at the 76th generation)". Other comments were that it is well referenced, granted, it's all to biblical references. However this nominator's argument is more compelling, particularly pointing to WP:NOTGENEALOGY and the other, similar articles that exist. My concern is that it's not complete and likely never would be and essentially, it's an aggregation of genealogies found in various locations in the Christian canon. My final point is from a Christian point of view: 1 Timothy 1:4 argues against this sort of article. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 19:22, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- Rename to "Descendants of Adam and Eve according to the Bible" or something like that and then keep. Debresser ( talk) 19:28, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. This could be an interesting topic if it discussed how different genealogies were derived, significance of the genealogies, and differences between them. But as a simple list, it's not encyclopedic. Pburka ( talk) 19:40, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- Strong Delete - The original nom is correct in all criticisms, but let's add a big one - it is one monstrous pile of WP:NOR violations. This is not what Wikipedia is for. Agricolae ( talk) 19:45, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- Weak delete
Merge to Genealogies in the Bible.I think splitting the genealogy into more portions would make for a more useful and more readable page. Looking at Genealogies of Genesis, I imagine it might be nice to also have Genealogies of Chronicles, but as nom points out, Abraham's family tree and Generations of Noah cover some (most? all?) of that. I'd like to note that this article and Genealogies in the Bible were created by the same editor, @ AMK152:, with Genealogies in the Bible about two years older. Smmurphy( Talk) 20:03, 4 May 2017 (UTC) - Redirect to Genealogies_of_Genesis#Genealogies_of_Cain_and_Seth. List and its selection seem to violate the policy against original research, as well as being redundant with existing articles. The note at the top about Cain is inappropriate for this encyclopedia, and the list then goes on to list him and his descendants anyway! The layout is really hard to read, and doesn't do a good job of informing one about the precise relationship as well as the layout used at Genealogies_of_Genesis#Genealogies_of_Cain_and_Seth and Abraham's_family_tree#Family_tree does. It glosses over any inconsistencies, which is part of the OR problem. Since this topic is adequately covered by other articles, my !vote is to redirect rather than delete; although I'm not sure how plausible a search term it is. ~ ONUnicorn( Talk| Contribs) problem solving 20:04, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete: I was the nominator of the previous AfD back in 2010, and Walter Görlitz is right - my argument then doesn't sound particularly convincing. But the list has not been fixed in the last seven years, and as Mangoe said in the last discussion, according to the Bible, everyone is descended from Adam and Eve, so the list makes no sense. St Anselm ( talk) 23:57, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete -- what the what? This does not look like something one would expect to find in an encyclopedia. I don't see a need to redirect, as the article history is not worth preserving. K.e.coffman ( talk) 01:39, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete - according to the bible, everyone is descended from Adam and Eve, and a "List of People" is not encyclopedic in nature. Power~enwiki ( talk) 06:43, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete - unencyclopediac, relies entirely on a primary source, and would be just about infinite if completion were attempted. PiCo ( talk) 07:22, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
- Incubation - poor standardized according to WP. This article serves for me as a single and simple entry-point to Bible genealogies. It4history ( talk) 07:37, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
- Drafts would usually be expected to eventually become mainspace articles I think, but if you cannot succeed to have it incubated, possibly that you might succeed to get it userfied (I'm still unsure, but a possible idea). It may be a good idea to copy its source code, in case these options are unavailable, in which case you may want to move it to another Wikimedia or compatible software based Wiki. A way to download its complete Wikisource is to use this link. — Paleo Neonate — 07:57, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
- Another note, I forgot to mention: if it becomes a blanked redirect, access to it will remain possible through a permalink, such as
Special:permalink/778474483, but you would no longer be able to modify it. —
Paleo
Neonate — 08:02, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for clarification. I like idea to get it userfied and will be happy to receive this article to address User:It4history/Descendants of Adam and Eve. The source is copied and parsed on github already but here I try to preserve modifications history of the article. Who may perform Wikipedia:Userfication#General_steps? It4history ( talk) 08:24, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
- If userfication can be done, a possible reason may be if the material is useful as an aid to edit Wikipedia (relevant to Wikipedia). Agricolae may be right that it's unlikely to be considered useful for Wikipedia. There is normally a delay of about seven days before the closer takes a decision based on the arguments and consensus of this discussion. I believe that it's possible to request userfication at WP:UNDELETE after an article is deleted, but it seems to not be possible for articles which were deleted through AfD (the current process). Apparently there is a list of administrators who may accept to receive userfication requests here. WP:AFDEQ has a warning about moving an article during the AfD process, I'm not sure if that can sometimes be done uncontroversially. I'm also wondering if Wikidata could not be a place were this type of list would be more adequate. If so, it may be "transwiki-able". — Paleo Neonate — 09:12, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete - Original nomination is correct in all criticisms, with WP:NOR as well. Since the relevant related topics are covered in other articles, there is no need to move to draft or further develop. Redirect to Genealogies of Genesis. I see no future usefulness or reason for this to be included in userspace. Sondra.kinsey ( talk) 14:39, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note I am not here to defend this article, merely to point out that Biblical genealogy is a serious topic, take a look at Japheth, for an example of this sort of article done fairly well. A good article tracing the significance of claims of descent form Adam and Eve would be a useful addition to the project. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 16:13, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete This has WP:NOR issues and is just a mess. Not sure how this was added let alone supported on Wikipedia. ContentEditman ( talk) 00:22, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
- I was told that a lot has changed since 2010 (time of the last nomination), when I initially wondered if this would be worth nominating again. Also, I think that various !votes of the last nomination mostly objected to the nominator's argument about it being useless (the nominator reason may have been filed hastily perhaps). — Paleo Neonate — 00:31, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete and have it redirect to Genealogies of Genesis. We have several other extensive Wikipedia articles, including but not limited to Genealogy of Jesus, that covers biblical genealogies. CookieMonster755 𝚨-𝛀 04:11, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
- I have no objection to userfying if User:AMK152 wants it. Otherwise, delete. Srnec ( talk) 18:23, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
- I know one of the concerns was that it was incomplete and needed work, which I could work on, but my schedule is hectic right now. Either put it in "User:AMK152/", "Draft;" namespace, or export it to my test wiki. Certainly the subject of Biblical genealogies is notable, much like that of European royalty, and such Biblical genealogies are covered in other articles, just not in a complete form. — AMK152 ( t • c) 00:48, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- Doing more Original Research is not going to fix a page that is entirely Original Research. As to comparing to the pages of genealogy for European royalty, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Agricolae ( talk) 03:45, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- "Descendants of Adam and Eve" is not a biblical genealogy.
PiCo (
talk) 01:38, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- Given that every single reference given comes from the Bible, how is that not biblical genealogy?
Agricolae (
talk) 03:45, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- The biblical genealogies are lists given in various books, with various purposes. One of them, Genesis 5:1, is indeed called the "generations" of Adam (not Eve), but that's the only one. It links then to the other "generations" in Genesis, but they continue only to the entry into Egypt. For the period after that it's possible to trace two lines, one for David and the other for the Aaronid priests, through to the end of Kings for the line of David and much further for the priests, but these can't be called a genealogy of Adam and Eve as that isn't their purpose and, more importantly, because it merges information that's given in discrete sources. It's an interesting study, but misleading to treat the various lines as if they were intended to deal with all humanity in some way. PiCo ( talk) 07:47, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- Given that every single reference given comes from the Bible, how is that not biblical genealogy?
Agricolae (
talk) 03:45, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- Redirect (or rather split) -- This seems to be based solidly on the Hebrew Bible. This is thus not wholly OR, assuming it correctly reproduces Genesis. "Other traditions" are unlikely to depend on any ancient sources whatever, though I appreciate Islam may have a separate view. A lot of the names are blue so that a list article is potentially valid. However, this needs to be split into the Descendants of Adam, which is probably merely a redirect to the Cain and Seth article; descendants of Noah (since the Bible assumes all other antediluvians drowned); descendants of Abraham (or perhaps a generation or two earlier to include cousins, such as Laban and Nahor); Aaronic priesthood (possibly two lines); ancestry of David (back to Judah). I suspect that many of these articles exist so that there is nothing to create. I am surprised how many blue links there are in the list, and wonder whether a wholesale cull is not needed of articles on people who are only recorded in the genealogies in 1 Chron. 1-7. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:54, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NOTGENEALOGY and pretty much all the above comments. An unencyclopedic mess of an article. Ajf773 ( talk) 08:03, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. Even on its own terms, the article is misleading. It does not present "the" genealogy of these figures according to the Bible. There is a tremendous amount of variation between the various genealogies scattered about in the Bible, and so many judgment calls are required in trying to synthesize them that any proposed super-genealogy will just be presenting someone's speculative attempt to synthesize it all. This problem exists to the point of being insurmountable even if we just confine ourselves to the Masoretic Text of the Hebrew Bible. Once you add in the New Testament, with its reliance on the Septuagint (are we going to bring the Septuagint into this too?) you open up unfixable can of worms. I'm all for people trying to make their own super-genealogies off Wikipedia, but presenting this as if it is simply "what the Bible says" is wrong. Alephb ( talk) 16:22, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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. Kurykh ( talk) 01:02, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Descendants of Adam and Eve
AfDs for this article:
- Descendants of Adam and Eve ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:RNPOV, WP:NOTGENEALOGY, WP:NOTWEBHOST, WP:WPNOTRS, WP:NOTRELIABLE. A genealogy that relies only on questionable primary sources, does not distinguish various traditions, does not discuss related mythology, theology or archaeology. Awkward to use or edit, may need a rewrite. Redundant with more notable and better presented Genealogies of Genesis, Abraham's family tree, Generations of Noah, List of minor biblical figures, A–K PaleoNeonate ( talk) 18:58, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. PaleoNeonate ( talk) 19:06, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. PaleoNeonate ( talk) 19:06, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. PaleoNeonate ( talk) 19:06, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. PaleoNeonate ( talk) 19:06, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. PaleoNeonate ( talk) 19:06, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. PaleoNeonate ( talk) 19:06, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been mentioned at Talk:Descendants_of_Adam_and_Eve PaleoNeonate ( talk) 19:13, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been mentioned at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Religion PaleoNeonate ( talk) 19:13, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been mentioned at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_History PaleoNeonate ( talk) 19:13, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been mentioned at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Christianity PaleoNeonate ( talk) 19:13, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been mentioned at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Judaism PaleoNeonate ( talk) 19:13, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been mentioned at User_talk:AMK152 (reason: article creator) PaleoNeonate ( talk) 19:13, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been mentioned at User_talk:PiCo (reason: editor who suggested that it be deleted) PaleoNeonate ( talk) 19:13, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been mentioned at User_talk:Doug_Weller (reason: recently active on talk page) PaleoNeonate ( talk) 19:13, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been mentioned at User_talk:It4history (reason: SPA, contributed significant content) PaleoNeonate ( talk) 19:13, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:14, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bible-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:14, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- Weak Delete One of the comments from the previous AfD discussion is informative: "a fairly efficient way of showing the relationship between the progeny of Adam and Eve as stated in the Bible; this one goes 55 generations, although there's room for more (Jesus was at the 76th generation)". Other comments were that it is well referenced, granted, it's all to biblical references. However this nominator's argument is more compelling, particularly pointing to WP:NOTGENEALOGY and the other, similar articles that exist. My concern is that it's not complete and likely never would be and essentially, it's an aggregation of genealogies found in various locations in the Christian canon. My final point is from a Christian point of view: 1 Timothy 1:4 argues against this sort of article. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 19:22, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- Rename to "Descendants of Adam and Eve according to the Bible" or something like that and then keep. Debresser ( talk) 19:28, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. This could be an interesting topic if it discussed how different genealogies were derived, significance of the genealogies, and differences between them. But as a simple list, it's not encyclopedic. Pburka ( talk) 19:40, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- Strong Delete - The original nom is correct in all criticisms, but let's add a big one - it is one monstrous pile of WP:NOR violations. This is not what Wikipedia is for. Agricolae ( talk) 19:45, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- Weak delete
Merge to Genealogies in the Bible.I think splitting the genealogy into more portions would make for a more useful and more readable page. Looking at Genealogies of Genesis, I imagine it might be nice to also have Genealogies of Chronicles, but as nom points out, Abraham's family tree and Generations of Noah cover some (most? all?) of that. I'd like to note that this article and Genealogies in the Bible were created by the same editor, @ AMK152:, with Genealogies in the Bible about two years older. Smmurphy( Talk) 20:03, 4 May 2017 (UTC) - Redirect to Genealogies_of_Genesis#Genealogies_of_Cain_and_Seth. List and its selection seem to violate the policy against original research, as well as being redundant with existing articles. The note at the top about Cain is inappropriate for this encyclopedia, and the list then goes on to list him and his descendants anyway! The layout is really hard to read, and doesn't do a good job of informing one about the precise relationship as well as the layout used at Genealogies_of_Genesis#Genealogies_of_Cain_and_Seth and Abraham's_family_tree#Family_tree does. It glosses over any inconsistencies, which is part of the OR problem. Since this topic is adequately covered by other articles, my !vote is to redirect rather than delete; although I'm not sure how plausible a search term it is. ~ ONUnicorn( Talk| Contribs) problem solving 20:04, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete: I was the nominator of the previous AfD back in 2010, and Walter Görlitz is right - my argument then doesn't sound particularly convincing. But the list has not been fixed in the last seven years, and as Mangoe said in the last discussion, according to the Bible, everyone is descended from Adam and Eve, so the list makes no sense. St Anselm ( talk) 23:57, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete -- what the what? This does not look like something one would expect to find in an encyclopedia. I don't see a need to redirect, as the article history is not worth preserving. K.e.coffman ( talk) 01:39, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete - according to the bible, everyone is descended from Adam and Eve, and a "List of People" is not encyclopedic in nature. Power~enwiki ( talk) 06:43, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete - unencyclopediac, relies entirely on a primary source, and would be just about infinite if completion were attempted. PiCo ( talk) 07:22, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
- Incubation - poor standardized according to WP. This article serves for me as a single and simple entry-point to Bible genealogies. It4history ( talk) 07:37, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
- Drafts would usually be expected to eventually become mainspace articles I think, but if you cannot succeed to have it incubated, possibly that you might succeed to get it userfied (I'm still unsure, but a possible idea). It may be a good idea to copy its source code, in case these options are unavailable, in which case you may want to move it to another Wikimedia or compatible software based Wiki. A way to download its complete Wikisource is to use this link. — Paleo Neonate — 07:57, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
- Another note, I forgot to mention: if it becomes a blanked redirect, access to it will remain possible through a permalink, such as
Special:permalink/778474483, but you would no longer be able to modify it. —
Paleo
Neonate — 08:02, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for clarification. I like idea to get it userfied and will be happy to receive this article to address User:It4history/Descendants of Adam and Eve. The source is copied and parsed on github already but here I try to preserve modifications history of the article. Who may perform Wikipedia:Userfication#General_steps? It4history ( talk) 08:24, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
- If userfication can be done, a possible reason may be if the material is useful as an aid to edit Wikipedia (relevant to Wikipedia). Agricolae may be right that it's unlikely to be considered useful for Wikipedia. There is normally a delay of about seven days before the closer takes a decision based on the arguments and consensus of this discussion. I believe that it's possible to request userfication at WP:UNDELETE after an article is deleted, but it seems to not be possible for articles which were deleted through AfD (the current process). Apparently there is a list of administrators who may accept to receive userfication requests here. WP:AFDEQ has a warning about moving an article during the AfD process, I'm not sure if that can sometimes be done uncontroversially. I'm also wondering if Wikidata could not be a place were this type of list would be more adequate. If so, it may be "transwiki-able". — Paleo Neonate — 09:12, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete - Original nomination is correct in all criticisms, with WP:NOR as well. Since the relevant related topics are covered in other articles, there is no need to move to draft or further develop. Redirect to Genealogies of Genesis. I see no future usefulness or reason for this to be included in userspace. Sondra.kinsey ( talk) 14:39, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note I am not here to defend this article, merely to point out that Biblical genealogy is a serious topic, take a look at Japheth, for an example of this sort of article done fairly well. A good article tracing the significance of claims of descent form Adam and Eve would be a useful addition to the project. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 16:13, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete This has WP:NOR issues and is just a mess. Not sure how this was added let alone supported on Wikipedia. ContentEditman ( talk) 00:22, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
- I was told that a lot has changed since 2010 (time of the last nomination), when I initially wondered if this would be worth nominating again. Also, I think that various !votes of the last nomination mostly objected to the nominator's argument about it being useless (the nominator reason may have been filed hastily perhaps). — Paleo Neonate — 00:31, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete and have it redirect to Genealogies of Genesis. We have several other extensive Wikipedia articles, including but not limited to Genealogy of Jesus, that covers biblical genealogies. CookieMonster755 𝚨-𝛀 04:11, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
- I have no objection to userfying if User:AMK152 wants it. Otherwise, delete. Srnec ( talk) 18:23, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
- I know one of the concerns was that it was incomplete and needed work, which I could work on, but my schedule is hectic right now. Either put it in "User:AMK152/", "Draft;" namespace, or export it to my test wiki. Certainly the subject of Biblical genealogies is notable, much like that of European royalty, and such Biblical genealogies are covered in other articles, just not in a complete form. — AMK152 ( t • c) 00:48, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- Doing more Original Research is not going to fix a page that is entirely Original Research. As to comparing to the pages of genealogy for European royalty, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Agricolae ( talk) 03:45, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- "Descendants of Adam and Eve" is not a biblical genealogy.
PiCo (
talk) 01:38, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- Given that every single reference given comes from the Bible, how is that not biblical genealogy?
Agricolae (
talk) 03:45, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- The biblical genealogies are lists given in various books, with various purposes. One of them, Genesis 5:1, is indeed called the "generations" of Adam (not Eve), but that's the only one. It links then to the other "generations" in Genesis, but they continue only to the entry into Egypt. For the period after that it's possible to trace two lines, one for David and the other for the Aaronid priests, through to the end of Kings for the line of David and much further for the priests, but these can't be called a genealogy of Adam and Eve as that isn't their purpose and, more importantly, because it merges information that's given in discrete sources. It's an interesting study, but misleading to treat the various lines as if they were intended to deal with all humanity in some way. PiCo ( talk) 07:47, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- Given that every single reference given comes from the Bible, how is that not biblical genealogy?
Agricolae (
talk) 03:45, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- Redirect (or rather split) -- This seems to be based solidly on the Hebrew Bible. This is thus not wholly OR, assuming it correctly reproduces Genesis. "Other traditions" are unlikely to depend on any ancient sources whatever, though I appreciate Islam may have a separate view. A lot of the names are blue so that a list article is potentially valid. However, this needs to be split into the Descendants of Adam, which is probably merely a redirect to the Cain and Seth article; descendants of Noah (since the Bible assumes all other antediluvians drowned); descendants of Abraham (or perhaps a generation or two earlier to include cousins, such as Laban and Nahor); Aaronic priesthood (possibly two lines); ancestry of David (back to Judah). I suspect that many of these articles exist so that there is nothing to create. I am surprised how many blue links there are in the list, and wonder whether a wholesale cull is not needed of articles on people who are only recorded in the genealogies in 1 Chron. 1-7. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:54, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NOTGENEALOGY and pretty much all the above comments. An unencyclopedic mess of an article. Ajf773 ( talk) 08:03, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. Even on its own terms, the article is misleading. It does not present "the" genealogy of these figures according to the Bible. There is a tremendous amount of variation between the various genealogies scattered about in the Bible, and so many judgment calls are required in trying to synthesize them that any proposed super-genealogy will just be presenting someone's speculative attempt to synthesize it all. This problem exists to the point of being insurmountable even if we just confine ourselves to the Masoretic Text of the Hebrew Bible. Once you add in the New Testament, with its reliance on the Septuagint (are we going to bring the Septuagint into this too?) you open up unfixable can of worms. I'm all for people trying to make their own super-genealogies off Wikipedia, but presenting this as if it is simply "what the Bible says" is wrong. Alephb ( talk) 16:22, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
- 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.