Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Family tree of Umar (2nd)


 * 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 no consensus. W.marsh 18:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Family tree of Umar


A prior AfD from April was overturned at deletion review and is listed here now for repeat consideration. Procedural listing, so I abstain. ~ trialsanderrors 09:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - Wikipedia is not a list of geneology entries. MER-C 10:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: There is a whole category of these. Punkmorten 10:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep Wikipedia is not a Gen Tree means that we should not make trees of non-notable people, having non-notable relatives. That is an extension of WP:NOT indiscriminate info. However, this does not included royalties, since almost all people in royalty houses are notable. This would not include single notable people with lots of NN relatives, but as said, being notable and having lots of notable people does merit a gen tree on WikiPedia. Just look att Category:Family trees and List of family trees. Now, with this said, the family of Umar is about as notable as you get in Sunni Islam. He is a Rashidun and Sahaba, all his same-timed relatives are also Sahaba and his daughter is a Mother of the Believers. His son is also an important Sahaba, and his grandsons are Salaf. Also, his genealogy back is relevant, Muslim biographies often include this to show distance relationship with Muhammad. Sunni Muslim are proud to carry the name even today. He had also several wives. This information is notable and accurate, having Gen Trees in WikiPedia is established in List of family trees, and there is no one disputing the notability of Umar's family. --Striver 11:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Btw, take a look at the systematic bias in List of family trees, only that is an argument for keeping this article. --Striver 11:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, look at the "In other languages" section. --Striver 11:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment article lacks any context. Who is this Umar guy, what makes him important, and why does it matter what his family tree was? From the links, it appears to be about this Umar, in which case it would be notable just like British monarchs' family tree . On closer inspection, it seems that his successor was elected, rather than succeeding him through relation like the Windsors, so I don't see the relevance of this article, unless Islam places some special significance on family trees/genealogy? Demiurge 11:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, he was elected, but its not like "Bush vs Kerry" elected, Umar was connected to Muhammad via marriage, and so was the two "finalists" in the election after him. family played an important role back then. It is not relevant to Umar, but all Shi'a twelver imams are connected via blood.--Striver 12:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep after reading Striver's comment, requesting that he transcribe his argument for notability into the article to establish context. (I know what-about arguments are frowned upon in AfDs, but if we can have SpongeBob SquarePants Family Trees then Umar deserves his family tree included too.) Demiurge 11:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That's now taken care of: Articles for deletion/SpongeBob SquarePants Family Trees. Sandstein 14:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I hope my current improvments suffice. --Striver 12:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Genealogies of national-level monarchs (in this case, an Islamic caliph) are notable enough. Sandstein 14:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * DeleteThe references are to a blog or website and to other Wikipedia articles. Reliable and verifiable sources should be available if he is a companion of Mohammed. Also Wikipedia is not a genealogy site, so each individual listed would need reliable and verifiable sources. Edison 00:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Rarely should we keep a family tree, but this appears to be one of the exceptions. The man the tree revolves around was the second caliph which is about as important as anyone in Islam can be.  The other individuals on the tree lived either at the time or immediately following Muhammad and some to be important, despite the fact that the articles are stubs.  The Article should be a bit more fleshed out, describe the importance of the family, but the notability is there. --The Way 09:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions.   --  &rArr;  bsnowball  16:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. This isn't my family tree, it's the family tree of notable people. Big difference. WMMartin 18:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment: if kept, should at least link to 'Umar ibn al-Khattāb in order to provide context. 69.140.173.15 16:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It does so in the very first line. --Striver 17:38, 26 November 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.