Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saxe-Eisenach

 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. dbenbenn | talk 01:17, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Saxe-Eisenach

 * Delete. looks like someone just pasted their geneology from the net. rubbish. Enochlau 00:57, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Mikkalai 01:29, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep It could develop --219.77.78.170 12:13, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * just gave us Hamburger of Truth and Votes for deletion/Hamburger of Truth. Uncle G 12:36, 2005 Feb 14 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a genealogy database. Delete. Uncle G 12:36, 2005 Feb 14 (UTC)
 * Agree with UncleG, Wikipedia is not a genealogy database. Delete. Mgm|(talk) 12:45, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Apart from Wikipedia not being a genealogy database, this looks like it may be a copyvio from somewhere else (yes, all these people are long dead, but surely we still can't just go and cut and paste like this). Average Earthman 13:43, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, genealogy, WP not a datadump. Wyss 20:38, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and cleanup: The genealogy of ruling and former ruling houses is inherently encyclopedic, at least in outline. Why do we have pages on every British peerage or a page for somebody who is No. 161 in the line of succession to the British throne? There may be other reasons to delete this (it being a copyvio, for instance, which hasn't been shown), but it being genealogy is not a valid reason in this case. (I'll change my vote if a copyvio can be established.) / up+land 19:00, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Hasn't been proved? It's clearly cut and paste from a website elsewhere. Just because we can't find where exactly doesn't change the fact that it has clearly been written since HTML was invented, so unless the original author has explicitly released it, we can't keep it. The 'more about' lines are a dead giveaway that it is originally from a website. Average Earthman 10:54, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep &mdash; Agreed. This article is also cross-linked from other useful pages. &mdash; RJH 20:11, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not a genealogy database. JoaoRicardo 00:08, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not a genealogy database. Rossami (talk) 04:23, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * The so-called article actually deals with the maternal descent and relatives of Caroline of Ansbach, Queen consort of George II of Great Britain. It only reaches to her maternal grandfather. User:Dimadick
 * Keep, cleanup and expand. Megan1967 06:21, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, notable ruling house. JamesBurns 09:04, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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.