Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Family tree of Maymuna bint al-Harith


 * 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 of the debate was no consensus. Ordinarily this defaults to keep, but I'll make the purely editorial (not administrative) decision to follow the recommendation of those proposing a move, since it appears to address the concerns of thos worried that we'll turn into a genealogical database. Johnleemk | Talk 14:20, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Family tree of Maymuna bint al-Harith

 * Delete, does not meet WP:V as it has no sources. Also not encyclopedic. Formating and composition very bad, nothing really salvagable from the article. Jersey Devil 06:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment User Jersey Devil appears to be on the war path against User Striver by proposing all articles created by the latter for deletion. Sad. Lambiam 16:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. She is only important because she was a wife of Prophet Muhammad. Her status does not merit a family tree. Pepsidrinka 07:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Wrong, see Articles for deletion/Family tree of Uthman ibn Affan--Striver 15:52, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Your going to have to be more explicit than that. As you can clearly see, I have added my opinion on that article, so I clearly know that that article exists. And since all of these pages are on your watchlist already, you shall see that I have expressed to keep on the Ali article. So I am clearly judging each article on its merits. Yes, she has prominent half-sisters, but that is because of who THEY married, not because they were notable on their own. Now, unless you can convince me that every wife of the Prophet deserves a family tree, I'm convinced that she does not deserve one. Pepsidrinka 19:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Read Deletion policy/Maltese nobility:
 * ''While 'Wikipedia is not a genealogy database', genealogy of nobility and royalty is considered encyclopedic.

Muhammads wives are royalty. We call them "mother of the belivers", other call it "queens". A queen is a royalty, specialy when she also is a notable Sahaba and have other prominent family mebers. --Striver 00:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete, a family tree is not very notable for her. --Ter e nce Ong 10:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, no genealogy database. Gazpacho 10:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Articles for deletion/Family tree of Uthman ibn Affan. see also bottom half of Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam:The Muslim Guild/Articles for deletion--Striver 15:52, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - Jersey Devil stop trying to make a Point -Irishpunktom\talk 16:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * delete WP:NOT a genealogical tree Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 21:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Pepsidrinka. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 21:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

List of family trees and Family_tree_of_the_Eighteenth_dynasty_of_Egypt --Striver 02:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above --Khoikhoi 06:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: The policy is known as "verifiability", not "verification." Just because something does not have sources does not mean that is cannot have sources. I am strongly in favor of adding sources everywhere, but unfortunately, if we started deleting articles solely because they are unsourced, then there might not be much left of Wikipedia. Ardric47 00:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, I am aware of the rather explicit conditions given in Verifiability, but I stand by my slippery slope argument and believe that a chance should be given for references to be added to articles. Ardric47 00:43, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

The article sources are there, you just need to click the link. Many of this things are also so much common knoweldege that sourcing is not even necesary. If you know anything about that topic, that is. But sure, ill add a tag to the article--Striver 14:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Move to a new First Muslim Dynasty article for similar reasons I have given in Articles for deletion/Family tree of Ali and Articles for deletion/Family tree of Uthman ibn Affan. Mainly none of these individuals was a separate dynasty on their own but all were part of the first Muslim Dynasty centred on Muhammad and the first four Caliphs. Otherwise we will be here till Kingdom come, with family tree for every single person who was related to Muhammad or happened to live across the street from him. Striver, you need to accept that family trees link related individuals but are not normally focussed on a single notable individual when there are other notable individuals around them. Green Giant 01:08, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Move per Green Giant. A much better way for a reader to understand a genealogical tree than individual nodes for each person or random persons in the tree. Weregerbil 08:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. - Eagletalk 01:09, 22 March 2006 (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.