Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/House of Munsö


 * 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.  E LIMINATOR JR  11:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

House of Munsö

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

I propose to delete this article. Although the term is common on google, this seems to come mostly from here. I did some searches on the academic parts of Google: The Swedish term is sv:Munsöätten. Also this term is not found on scholar.google. However, on books.google this term occurs. In just one single book, on three pages in "Fornnordisk ordbok" (1975) by sv:Åke Ohlmarks. Conclusion: this is bordering on WP:HOAX. It should not be an article. /Pieter Kuiper 21:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC) --Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 13:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * books.google.com("House of Munsö"): 0 (zero) hits;
 * scholar.google.com("House of Munsö"): "did not match any documents."
 * Comment Looking at the lineage chart, it seems like there are a good deal of real people involved, which just on the surface leads me to believe this isn't a hoax, then again, I can't be sure. Oy, I feel like I'm reading Beowulf again...
 * Sweyn Estridson was real, but the lineage to Sigurd Ring is either original research, or WP:SYN, or from an outdated book. The other thing is that no academic historian uses the term "House of Munsö". /Pieter Kuiper 21:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep don't know anything about the context of this article, but seems to show some notability, most of the names in the tree have articles, although it does need some cleanup, such as what is the reason behind the list of names at the bottom?--Jac16888 22:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This dynasty would be notable if it had existed. Although most of the entries in the pedigree are notable, the tree-structure itself is not - WP:SYN, nor is the name of this article. Compare this with a search books.google.com(Ynglinga dynasty"), which gives 23 hits (154 on Ynglingaätten). /Pieter Kuiper 22:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete I think the question is whether there is any documentation for the name of the dynasty.If so, it's notable, But what I can see of the source gives me no great confidence. It appears to be a biographic dictionary without references. DGG (talk) 23:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Deletionism run amok. The swedish name gets over 800 hits;, one of them is the Historical Museum in Stockholm. The name is used as shorthand for this family among genealogists.[ Plantagenet was not the name that family called itself either until quite late.
 * That is exactly what I say: hobby-genealogists use the term on their web pages. You succeeded in finding one single mention of "Munsöätten" on all the pages of the Swedish Museum of National Antiquities. If I too might adduce a non-authoritative web site, Örjan Martinsson says that "the term House of Munsö should be avoided because it is ahistoric and takes position for a controversial interpretation of history." Contrary to the Plantagenets or the House of Stenkil, the people on this page were not a dynasty. /Pieter Kuiper
 * We can still have articles on terms that should be avoided and controversial interpretations of history as long as they report the relevant controversy in a neutral manner. Haukur 16:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly. This AFD is improper because it is, in fact, a content dispute. What Pieter should do, if he wishes, is add information regarding the controversy. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 18:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Concerning Pieter Kuiper's edits, it may be worth noting that he considers being called a "vandal" to be an award on his user page.--Berig 19:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Briangotts and Haukur.--Berig 19:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment If the name itself and very existence of the dynasty is challenged, I dont quite see how to discuss it on the talk page. --Supposing it were concluded it was not valid, what would the article then say? "This is an rarely-used but invalid name for a dynasty that doesn't exist" ?  DGG (talk) 20:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - fictional or not, the topic is notable. Heck, just the debate over whether this house existed or not makes it notable.  I think this is more an issue of what to say in the article than an issue of whether to have an article. Blueboar 17:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * speedykeep per Briangotts. There can still be a merge debate based on WP:NOTABILITY. dab (𒁳) 19:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - the question is if there are enough references to support a minority view point on the mythological history of area. Also, I thought I recalled making a comment on this afd a couple days ago, but it's not here.  The Fringe theories/Noticeboard has a long discussion on this article as well that might be helpful.  It comes down to reduction in WP:OR and increase in WP:V.  --Rocksanddirt 15:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename. Here's a valid genealogy. The page should be rewritten to make it clear that the first dynasty of Sweden does not have a well-established name. It may be referred to as "Uppsala Ynglingar dynasty", "dynasty of Björn Ironside", and whatnot. --Ghirla-трёп- 22:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - If this whole thing were Gothicismus, it would still be notable and sourced. -- Petri Krohn 03:10, 24 August 2007 (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.