Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Byzantine ancestry of Norwegian Royal Family


 * 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. Can be recreated as a redirect if a suitable target article is found. Also, a light scolding to the nominator for using Wikipedia-specific acronyms in the nomination statement without bothering to link them for those that may not know what they mean, as suggested in the guide to deletion. (a minor issue perhaps bit it's a pet peeve of mine) Beeblebrox (talk) 02:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Byzantine ancestry of Norwegian Royal Family

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

OR by synth, non-notable. There has not been any substantial writing (at least in English) on this particular possible linkage, and there is no particular reason, some historical confluence or overlap, that would cause someone to wonder, "Gee, do the Norwegian royalty descend from Byzantine people?" It is like someone threw a dart at a map and connected the nations hit on a whim. Agricolae (talk) 02:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.  —Agricolae (talk) 02:48, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment though lacking citations, I suspect that the information is correct. However (1) why the Norwegian Royal Family, since all the pedigrees involve "Frederick VIII of Denmark"; (2) Is it encyclopaedic?  It might be better to have an article in Byzantine descents of western Europeans royalty generally.  I suspect that there were relatively few relevant marriages to connect western kings and nobles with Eastern Emperors.  That would be potentially be an interesting subject, but the present article invites equivalent ones for all the other European royal families.  Peterkingiron (talk) 18:55, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not doubting the accuracy of most of it. The line through Constance of Provence is dubious, and the Monomakh marriage is too specific (Vladimir's mother's was a Monomakhina, but her precise placement is anybody's guess), but that kind of thing can be dealt with. The majority of these marriages are reasonably well documented. There is a problem with the descents, however. The degree to which medieval and post-medieval royalty intermarried means that once a novel strain was introduced it spread rapidly, and subsequent intermarriages resulted in exponential increases in the number of possible ways of tracing from the original marriages. Any such page is only showing an arbitrary selection of the hundreds of possible ways a given modern royal house descends for any ancient one.  The value of having such pages for every royal house, describing a random selection of possible lines, is what I question. That being said, I think I know the origin of this one - there is such a page for Byzantine ancestry of Greek Royal Family. This, arguably, might have a place as the Greek state overlaps geographically with portions of the former Byzantine Empire, and the royal family may have used such descents as a foundation for legitimacy (I don't know that this was the case, just that it might have been).  Since the Greek royal family was a scion of the Norwegian Danish, and so was the Norwegian, we ended up with a Norwegian page as well, but without any of the justification that might pertain to the Greek one. Even with the Greek, only such descents used for claiming legitimacy, and not those derived from modern research, are appropriate. Agricolae (talk) 00:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC) corrected Agricolae (talk) 23:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge. I would go along with Peterkingiron's suggestion and merge this article into a larger one on Byzantine descents of western European royalty. For example, through the marriage of Philip of Swabia ( a member of the House of Hohenstaufen) to the Byzantine Irene Angelina, Byzantine ancestry was eventually passed to virtually all the western European royal dynasties. By having an article solely on the Norwegian Royal Family, it suggests that Byzantine ancestry only occurs in that particular dynasty which is misleading and incorrect.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, let's address this: a possible article on marriages between Byzantines and members of the European royalty/nobility. Maybe I am just jaded by how ordinary this is. Are we going to have 'Marriages between Basques and European royalty?', 'Marriages between Vikings and European royalty?', 'Marriages between etc, etc.' Any group about which someone unfamiliar with medieval marriage patterns may sit and wonder. To my knowledge, since Brook wrote his study and showed how common such marriages were, there has been almost no published work on this as a topic. In some cases a publication adds to notability. Brook showed just how non-notable such marriages were. There were dozens of marriages and most royalty descend from most of the marriages - nothing special here. Agricolae (talk) 16:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think what Peterkingiron was suggesting was an article showing the common Byzantine ancestry of the western European royal dynasties, so that this article with its genealogical link to the Norwegian royal family can be merged into that one. I would support such an article, but to have separate articles on every family with a line going back to the Byzantines would be superfluous to say the least.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I realize that, and what I am saying is that there is nothing special about THAT topic to merit a page, and it likewise begs separate articles on common Basque ancestry and common Viking ancestry and common Welsh ancestry and common Pomeranian ancestry and common Cuman ancestry and common Finnish ancestry and common Vlach ancestry. The medieval and post-medieval royalty intermarried - a lot. There is common ancestry involving just about every European nationality.  If Norway is a non-notable destination, Byzantium is just as non-notable an origin when it comes to such descents. Agricolae (talk) 19:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Agricolae, what you say is indeed true, as we can literally do separate articles on common descents from many diverse peoples, not solely the Byzantines. I just hate to see so much work deleted, and would prefer to see it merged somewhere else. Has the creator of the article been notified? It seems a bit strange that he or she has not commented here.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:19, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * At least for now the identical material appears on Byzantine ancestry of Greek Royal Family. As we have discussed before, the effort put into a page does not, in and of itself, require a place be made for that material so it is not lost.  Some material is just pointless trivia that is better off on a personal, or in this case genealogical, web page, and its removal from Wikipedia is no loss.  As to notifying, I used an automated process that includes notification. I did not confirm that it actually did what it was supposed to. Agricolae (talk) 10:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   07:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Merge this into Byzantine ancestry of Greek Royal Family, or vice-versa. Royalty is, pardon the pun, commonly notable.  While it might be encyclopedic and somewhat notable, it should not be redundant. Bearian (talk) 22:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I can see which way the wind is blowing, but this page is the genealogical equivalent of "Royalty with large ears" or "Royalty with halitosis", or "Royalty who can drive cars". There is no common notability inherent to anything royal. Were it not for the fact that the author wanted to score a low-effort two-fer after creating the Greek page, it would never occur to anyone to create such a page, nor to look for one. As such, preserving a redirect is pointless, and there is nothing in this page that is of the least value to the Greek page. All but the most recent generations are a copy of the Greek, and those most recent generations are irrelevant to the it. Agricolae (talk) 04:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per nominator. Srnec (talk) 03:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge into Byzantine ancestry of Greek Royal Family. This information shouldn't be eliminated; however, as virtually all the European dynasties descend from the Byzantines there should not be a specific article on just the Norwegians.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment The above is a duplicate vote. Jeanne, this is not like Chicago where on election day you are encouraged to vote early and vote often. Agricolae (talk) 08:27, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Chicago? I wouldn't know anything about that city or its electoral procedures as I've never been there. You are welcome, of course, to delete my above comment.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It is of dubious propriety, to say the least, to delete anything from a talk page written by someone else, particularly after it has been commented upon, except in special circumstances (copyright violation, open slander, etc.). An inappropriate vote doesn't pass the bar. You should strike out the vote portion of the comment. Agricolae (talk) 16:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You say that the non-Norway-specific information shouldn't be lost. Since this page was copied from the Greek one, and only the Norway-specific information changed, then if the page is deleted nothing that you value will be lost.  Given that, why not delete it - certainly not because we want a redirect pointing from Norway to Greece. Agricolae (talk) 23:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete as synthesis. Sole Soul (talk) 15:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You make a good point, Agricolae, seeing as we already do have the duplicate info on the Greek article-bar the Norwegian additions. It really does not make sense to merge. Normally it's against my character to switch sides once I've voted on an issue, however you do make a compelling argument in favour of deletion. Just keep the info in the Greek article.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:07, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per above. DrKiernan (talk) 13:15, 27 February 2010 (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.