The result was No consensus, default to keep. Feel free to merge as well. — Wknight94 ( talk) 17:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia does contain some genealogy, but it is not a database for obscure/especially particular descents. The problem with an article such as this is that it opens up opportunities for nearly infinite other similar articles. Articles of this nature have always been deleted before, for instance, Finnish ancestry of various royals, etc. While the information may be accurate, it is not encyclopedic. It is best deleted or userified. Charles 18:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was No consensus, default to keep. Feel free to merge as well. — Wknight94 ( talk) 17:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia does contain some genealogy, but it is not a database for obscure/especially particular descents. The problem with an article such as this is that it opens up opportunities for nearly infinite other similar articles. Articles of this nature have always been deleted before, for instance, Finnish ancestry of various royals, etc. While the information may be accurate, it is not encyclopedic. It is best deleted or userified. Charles 18:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply