Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grail family

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:32, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Grail family
Pseudo-history which is already covered in the article on the book Holy Blood, Holy Grail. There is no such thing as the "Grail family". / Uppland 04:34, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirect appropriate then? -Fennec (&#12399;&#12373;&#12400;&#12367;&#12398;&#12365;&#12388;&#12397;) 05:30, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete, POV essay. Megan1967 08:24, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. POV essay. Jayjg (talk) 10:59, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep. Although the article as it stands is obviously a POV essay, I believe the concept of a "Grail Family" - popularized by Dan Brown's recent best sellers - is not. Unlike The Da Vinci Code, Holy Blood, Holy Grail was never meant to be fiction: its theses have not found general acceptance, but they reflect nevertheless an opinion shared by many historians - unorthodox and controversial historians, true, but some of them notable. I think this qualifies the article as encyclopedic, though it needs serious cleanup. Vlad M V  &#1645; talk 21:06, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Can you give any examples of historians whose opinions are reflected by Holy Blood, Holy Grail? / Uppland 21:52, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Please note I'm neither a particular fan of Holy Blood, Holy Grail, nor an enthusiast of its theses. In fact, I personally believe them to be speculative and of no scientific value. I don't have the book anymore, but I've read it, and the authors do cite an array of historians. I'm not a historian myself, but if they did not invent the names they refer to - and I believe they didn't -, then their ideas are not original research, but existing (though controversial) theories. Hence, I don't see grounds for deletion. Vlad M V  &#1645; talk 13:13, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Josh Cherry 02:16, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Slac speak up!  05:42, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. -Sean Curtin 05:50, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * delete as this has already been proven as a con gone wrong. If you disagree you should have watched The Real Da Vinci Code on Channel 4. User: Kevino7

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.