Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genealogy of the House of Loredan


 * 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. Daniel (talk) 22:44, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Genealogy of the House of Loredan

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Not an encyclopedic topic; WP:NOTGENEALOGY. Most of this information is at House of Loredan anyhow. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 16:51, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 16:51, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 16:51, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

*Keep WP:NOTGENEALOGY doesn’t say genealogical articles are banned. It says “Family histories should be presented only where appropriate to support the reader's understanding of a notable topic.” The house of Loredan is absolutely a notable topic, having been one of the leading families of Venice for centuries and providing a number of doges. The value of having a family tree is that it makes clear how individuals stood in relationship to each other in an exceptionally complex group of families. Because of the complexity of this family a family tree is of unusually great value. We have family trees for the Medicis, the Gonzagas and other Italian noble families and this sits comfortably along with them. Mccapra (talk) 19:29, 14 March 2021 (UTC) Striking comment as I hadn’t realised this was a copy and paste fork. Mccapra (talk) 06:30, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-encyclopedic genealogy. There doesn't appear to be anything worth merging, and a redirect would likely be of minimal value. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:56, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * In addition, I note that the content of this article is present - verbatim - in the House of Loredan article. (There appears to have been no attribution, which violates WP:CWW.) Even assuming for sake of argument that the content is permissible, the place for it is in the main article. There's no use forking the content, and a split is not justified. (The main article has less than 50k characters of readable prose, which generally means a split would be inappropriate.) Therefore, deleting the article is justified on the independent ground that its content belongs in the main article. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:43, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:MILL. They're very minor nobility. Bearian (talk) 18:33, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom   Devoke  water  15:21, 20 March 2021 (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.