Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Holy Roman Emperors/Additional


 * 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. - Mailer Diablo 07:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

List of Holy Roman Emperors/Additional
Wikipedia is not a genealogy database. Rmhermen 14:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and also aren't article subpages obsolete? Computerjoe 's talk 14:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Subpages are very obsolete. This was moved as a temporary measure from a category description. Rmhermen 18:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete as per nom. Also if this gets kept, it needs to be broken down somehow into multiple articles - the size of this is huge.--Gay Cdn  (talk) (email) (Contr.) 14:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. If the article does get kept, it needs to be seriously wikified. --Gray Porpoise 15:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Also, it could be OR. Lurker  talk 15:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Since this text is from Category:Holy Roman Emperors and got tossed out of that category, it pretty much speaks for itself. Plus, since the last line includes "Date of Import", I smell copyvio somewhere. Baseball,Baby!   balls  •  strikes  15:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Holy carp, find your enter key! -- stubblyh ea d | T/c 16:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete this barely readable load of irrelevant nonsense. Keresaspa 16:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Wow. Who actually spent the time to write 300kb of genealogy text? Paragon12321 16:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: User: Mapgaret, apparently. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 16:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete or Merge - I didn't go through all of the article but it is possible that there might be important data on notable people not yet mentioned in wikipedia included, if that data is verifiable. But it is an unholy mess, though.  Badbilltucker 17:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Might want to see if User:Icairns wants to keep it on a personal sandbox page or something. Has someone tried to email him? JungleCat    talk / contrib  18:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I left him a message about this. JungleCat    talk / contrib  18:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete —  dear god... American Patriot 1776 18:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - This article was NOT my creation - I simply moved it from a Category introduction where it was even more inappropriate. I don't want it. It isn't mine. I was loathe to delete 305Kb without a chance of someone else deciding on its merits or otherwise. I am completely happy with this vote as a democratic comment on the piece's worth. Ian Cairns 19:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment The author was User:Mapgaret.Thanks, Ian Cairns 22:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Move to user namespace. The author didn't intend this unreadable mess as an article.  He's just storing it for future use. -- Slowmover 19:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment He doesn't want it. JungleCat    talk / contrib  19:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment The author was User:Mapgaret. I was the editor who removed it from a Category introduction... I don't want it. Mapgaret may - if it isn't a copyvio anyhow. Thanks, Ian Cairns 22:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete, unnecessary mess that the author doesn't want. --Core des at talk. ^_^ 19:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete appears to be a dump from Mapgaret's genealogy database (so nobody wrote 300k of text). Either the info can be reconstructed from reliable sources if necessary, in which case this is redundant, or it can't, in which case this fails WP:V and WP:NOR (as most genealogy stuff does). Angus McLellan  (Talk) 17:06, 11 August 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.