Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ancestry of Thomas Jefferson


 * 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   keep. Consensus certainly favors retention of the content, with a slightly more vocal argument for keeping it at its current location and to allow for expansion. Nonetheless, regardless of whether such expansion occurs, I see no reason that the merge issue cannot be revisited by interested editors in the future. -- Kinu  t/c 03:14, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Ancestry of Thomas Jefferson

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Prod was denied--bulk of article is simply a collapsible table. Anything useful can simply be incorporated into the main article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep -- this is useful information not otherwise available. It is too long and detailed for the Jefferson article which is too long and had to be shortened. Many historians, genealogists and archivists have worked on the topic over the years and all the major biographies of Jefferson make mention of the material. The fact that it now formatted as a collapsible seems to bother some people for reasons unknown--but that does not affect the contents.  It includes an introductory text, discussion of the DNA issue, references to major scholarly books and scientific article, and a link to a useful external website.  This is not the family history of a character on a tv show-- it deals in serious, uncontroversial fashion with one of the most famous people in world history. Eventually other editors will add links to the specific individuals included here. Rjensen (talk) 23:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep per Jensen  Purpleback pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  14:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Merge/redirect If Thomas Jefferson needs to be shortened, there are better ways to do it.  Someone needs to do the hard work of tightening up the prose by making the summaries more concise.  There are plenty of subsidiary articles that are the proper places to get into the details.  This article has very little real information other than a table that is collapsible. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 15:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * it appears no one wants the Ancestry article deleted--they only want it moved back to the Jefferson article which is too long already. This Ancestry article will grow in length --for examples the numerous studies of DNA refer to TJ's relatives (not to TJ himself). When expanded it will be less and less a fit for the TJ article. Rjensen (talk) 23:18, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Per Rjensen.  Worthwhile content, main article too long.--Arxiloxos (talk) 23:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge - the table is worthwhile and should be incorporated in the main article but does not add enough text to justify its own page. Avoid unnecessary splits. Neutralitytalk 17:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge to the main article. 64.229.100.153 (talk) 05:30, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge. The article is little more than a stub. This topic is biographical to Jefferson. Merge it with the Thomas Jefferson/Family section, which is only a half page long also. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 08:58, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per Rjensen, Arxiloxos, et al. This is a worthy article, that would be of obvious interest to our core readership - students.  It meets WP:GNG by being well-sourced and about a notable topic, and is likely to be expanded in the near future.  It's odd, but we have lots of odd articles.  I do not see any reason given as to why this should be deleted, other than its unusual nature.  Many genealogy articles are little more than charts. I think the main article is too large for a merger, but I leave that up to the closing admin to decide.  Bearian (talk) 23:47, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - The main article is too long and this one contains very useful and worthwhile informations. -- Joaquin008  ( talk ) 07:18, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is clearly encyclopedic material that is well sourced.  Whether to put it in the main Thomas Jefferson article or somewhere else is a purely editorial decision but it is not obviously inappropriate as a separate article nor should it be drastically pruned (e.g. to just the table).  Eluchil404 (talk) 10:03, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per Rjensen and Bearian. Wickedjacob (talk) 16:01, 9 May 2011 (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.