Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Claim of the biblical descent of the Bagrationi dynasty


 * 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. Merge discussions can proceed through normal channels. postdlf (talk) 20:38, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Claim of the biblical descent of the Bagrationi dynasty

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable theory as to the descent of the Bagrationi dynasty. G S Palmer (talk) 16:21, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'd advise you to get aware what the Bagrationi dynasty is. It's perfectly sourced and it is not a "non-notable" theory. Again you're confusing the family tree with the Family tree of the Bible. This is a claim which was maintained by the Georgian monarchs and royalty of the Bagrationi dynasty almost 1500 years. Jaqeli (talk) 16:31, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is not a theory, but a family legend which originated back in the 8th century. However, it is not only "notable", but it is famous. I do think that the article needs some major reworking, addition of a lede, and a better title. It is certainly expandable; the sources abound (e.g., works by Cyril Toumanoff and Stephen H. Rapp to name a few. See also a more recent source) and should be added. These shortcomings should be addressed.--KoberTalk 16:33, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 10 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Improve but Purge -- This is a difficult issue. The subject is the equivalent of WP:OR from the 8th century.  However, it is a legend that was no doubt long believed by the ruling family in later periods.  There is an equivalent invented descent for the royal family of Wessex.  I think the answer is that even if the descent is only legendary (and improbable), it is still notable.  On the other hand, the first portion which consists of articles on kings of Judah and Israel, and is clearly sources from the Bible, soes not really belong here.  I am sure that we have better articles on that period.  However, the rest of it should be retained with a certain amount of introductory commentary, explaining the sources and indicating that the dynasty claimed descent from one of the last kings of Judah.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:42, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge or delete -- Merge with Bagrationi dynasty. Not sufficient information to stand alone as its own article.--The Emperor&#39;s New Spy (talk) 22:29, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Changing vote because of changes.--The Emperor&#39;s New Spy (talk) 15:48, 18 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm going to say Merge. It's important information, but I don't think it merits it's own article. We should just find a way to fit the information in the main Bagrationi dynasty article. I Feel Tired (talk) 01:06, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Also try using the format used for Genealogy of Jesus instead of family tree or else it takes up too much space.--The Emperor&#39;s New Spy (talk) 10:24, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm developing the article in my userspace. I will add sources as time permits. Comments and suggestions are welcome. And please think of a better title if the article survives. --KoberTalk 21:26, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * What about "Biblical claim of the Bagrationi dynasty"? Jaqeli (talk) 07:51, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. I've moved my text to the main space. Comments and suggestions are welcome. "Biblical claim of the Bagrationi dynasty" is a very vague title. The title should make it clear that the article deals with the alleged/claimed/mythic/legendary genealogy. --KoberTalk 14:10, 12 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Merge, per The Emperor&#39;s New Spy: interesting as historical lacuna but would be undue weight as stand-alone article today, implicitly lending the legend a currency and prominence it has lost since remaining unconfirmed by post-Soviet, dynastic genealogy. No objection, however, to the present title of the article. FactStraight (talk) 01:24, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think that merge is a good option now, when it has been converted to a full-length and balanced article, with a lot of good sources. Please note that The Emperor&#39;s New Spy had voiced his opinion before I revised the article. --KoberTalk 05:22, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I had noted the changes. The problem is not whether or not plentiful sources can be found discussing the biblical origin of the Bagrationi, but rather because that legend has been completely debunked (except, you say, to some members of the Bagrationi family!) it belongs to the nearly universal category of other myths alleging that historical dynasties descend from gods, and as such should be covered in the main article on the dynasty as an historical fabrication. Otherwise, undue weight is given to the fable. The expansion makes it read even more like a coatrack which purports to explain mistaking a falsehood for truth for half a millenium, while glorifying the Bagrationi by dwelling in the present on past myths about the family. Merge it. FactStraight (talk) 08:23, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The myth is still notable and once helped the dynasty to gain the foothold. The books cited in the article have entire chapters dedicated to the legendary genealogy of the dynasty. UNDUE/COAT are not the problems here as the text, including the intro, clearly states the Davidic origin is legendary and enjoys no currency in modern scholarship. Please reread the article. It just discusses the evolution of the myth and its treatment by modern scholars. How come this article glorifies the Bagrationi? This is the article about the myth, which is definitely notable. Can you please cite any passage in this article that makes this myth look like the reality or otherwise "glorifying" the dynasty? If you cannot, then I'm afraid your rationale is flawed. --KoberTalk 11:55, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I respectfully disagree that the article is fine as long as there is nothing in it "that makes this myth look like the reality". A coatrack is, by definition, not explicit -- and may be unintentional. A coatrack is defined as "a Wikipedia article that ostensibly discusses the nominal subject, but in reality is a cover for a tangentially related biased subject...The existence of a 'hook' in a given article is not a good reason to 'hang' irrelevant and biased material there." Here, the "hook" is the role of the biblical origin in Georgian history, while the undue weight is in implying that this myth is of substantial enough current importance to deserve so much ink in the history of a deposed dynasty in a monarchy abolished more than 200 years ago. So the problem isn't that the article tries to make the myth sound "factual" (I apologise if I gave you that impression), but that it makes that aspect of the dynasty sound more important in reporting Georgian history than is warranted in a 21st century encyclopedia's coverage. Everything that happened in Georgia is part of its history, but not everything deserves maximum coverage. I agree that the legend and its role in Georgian history are notable -- just not notable enough for a separate article. The key points should be condensed and scaled so that they don't skew the emphasis of the Bagrationi dynasty article, and incorporated therein. And I note that most here concur. FactStraight (talk) 20:46, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm moving my recommendation from delete to Merge. The article has been sufficiently expanded, but the topic doesn't warrant a page of its own.  G S Palmer (talk) 13:08, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge with what? Is it really possible to merge such a huge text with any other article without violating WP:UNDUE? --KoberTalk 14:34, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * With Bagrationi dynasty, of course. And that isn't an argument for not merging: it's an argument for trimming it down then merging.  G S Palmer (talk) 20:14, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. If someone wants to allege that the sources are being misrepresented I may change my vote, but as is this looks to the untrained eye like a meticulous article on an obscure legend of history; nothing wrong with that, and certainly there's enough material to be separate from the dynasty page. SnowFire (talk) 22:23, 14 May 2014 (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.