Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Descendants of Adam and Eve


 * 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:46, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Descendants of Adam and Eve

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

This is not a helpful list. If people want to read the genealogies in the Bible, then can look at 1 Chronicles, chapters 1 to 9, or whatever. This list doesn't make the genealogy easier to understand. Plus, it has a whole lot of question marks, and few of the wikilinks are actually to articles about those people StAnselm (talk) 06:20, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:39, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:39, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  —  Lady  of  Shalott  20:11, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep It seems that StAnselm's argument is WP:USELESS.  That's not enough.  The article collects information from various books of the bible into a single list, and saying that someone can just look it up in the bible is like saying that anyone can just do their own research instead of reading a Wikipedia article. Why does Wikipedia exist then?  We cover notable topics in Wikipedia, whether or not a given editor finds the topic personally useful.  Many bible topics including this one are notable and this may include many "minor" or lesser known characters, but there are major ones on the list as well. Cullen328 (talk) 07:06, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You do realise that we already have List of minor Biblical figures, Sons of Noah, Abraham's family tree and Genealogies of Genesis? StAnselm (talk) 08:32, 14 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is good information, and is nicely compiled. It has references. Also, it could be under the category of Christianity. So yeah, definitely keep. Endofskull (talk) 17:29, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Actually, 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). Hopefully, someone will add a few words for some of these folks-- "built the Ark", "lived 969 years", "first murder victim", "spilled his seed", etc.   I'm surprised at the argument that this should be deleted because people "can look at 1 Chronicles, chapters 1 to 9, or whatever".  Maybe all Wikipedia articles should be redirected to a sign that says "Go to the public library."  Mandsford 18:23, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - simple, straightforward layout that is referenced. As for, "Plus, it has a whole lot of question marks, and few of the wikilinks are actually to articles about those people" - these are areas for improvement, not good arguments for deletion. Lady  of  Shalott  20:08, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - as above; The list is simple, with links to the Biblical people, and with specific references. I cannot find such an efficient article on the subject on the entire Internet. -—  AMK152  (t • c) 20:25, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Just on the basis of formatting and readability, this has the edge on 1 Chronicles. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:36, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hah! Totally agree, I have no intention of reading 1 Chronicles.   Th e S te ve   11:31, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - most useful for our core readership: students. I have one quibble: it's too long for easy editing. Bearian (talk) 22:15, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Strictly speaking, this should contain everyone listed in Wikipedia, or at least everyone ever mentioned in the bible. But be that as it may, I find in practice that anything below the first screenful is an unreadable mess; I cannot establish how most of these people are descended from Adam. Mangoe (talk) 13:36, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If you have ideas for how to improve it, then we'd be delighted to hear them. However this is at present our best effort. It seems odd that some are calling to keep it on the basis that it's more readable than the prose sources of Chronicles, but others wish to delete it because it's not readable enough. If we already have some idealised genealogy display for this, please point me at it. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment I'll agree that this list is very useful for some people, but for me it is somewhat problematic as a WP article. The format, while very creative, doesn't really suit WP--it doesn't conform to any existing template or style.   That may seem like a pointless complaint, but it would be very hard for other editors to contribute to this page as it is the project of a small team of users.  It just seems like the creators of this really should create their own website for this rather than store it on Wikipedia in their own format.  I'm sure the editors are acting in good faith (no pun intended) but I feel the page has potential WP:OWN issues due to its 'pet project' feel.--Johnsemlak (talk) 09:38, 20 November 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.