| Revision as of 21:52, 19 November 2012 editPaul Bedson (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users13,657 edits reply to sketchy← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:57, 19 November 2012 edit undoMike Christie (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors70,528 edits →Ancestry of the kings of Britain: DeleteNext edit → | ||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
| ::You shouldn't create pages for the sole purpose of being sources for other pages. Likewise, the fact that you are super-interested in something is insufficient to demonstrate that the material is super-notable. And no, we don't ''want'' the other pages you have named, which are equally inappropriate. Quit trying to turn Misplaced Pages into a repository for sketchy genealogy. ] (]) 21:42, 19 November 2012 (UTC) | ::You shouldn't create pages for the sole purpose of being sources for other pages. Likewise, the fact that you are super-interested in something is insufficient to demonstrate that the material is super-notable. And no, we don't ''want'' the other pages you have named, which are equally inappropriate. Quit trying to turn Misplaced Pages into a repository for sketchy genealogy. ] (]) 21:42, 19 November 2012 (UTC) | ||
| *What is ''sketchy'' about it? I've added some ] that I hope will clarify. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.1em 0.1em 0.1em; class=texhtml; font-family: Verdana;">] ❉]❉</span> 21:52, 19 November 2012 (UTC) | *What is ''sketchy'' about it? I've added some ] that I hope will clarify. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.1em 0.1em 0.1em; class=texhtml; font-family: Verdana;">] ❉]❉</span> 21:52, 19 November 2012 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Delete'''. Not independently notable. Paul, I think it would be best if you waited to let these discussions come to consensus before creating further articles, in case the consensus is that this material is not notable. I suggest the closer closes this in conjunction with ] and possibly also the merge at ], if enough people have commented there, since they are all related discussions. ] (] - ] - ]) 22:57, 19 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 22:57, 19 November 2012
Ancestry of the kings of Britain
- Ancestry of the kings of Britain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Inaccurate Original Research, misnamed, and a WP:COATRACK for an editor who has now created three different pages (the other two already up for AfD or merger) in an effort to find a way to force this bogus genealogical ephemera into Misplaced Pages somewhere, anywhere. Agricolae (talk) 20:37, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 20:39, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 20:39, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- Keep I am just being creative. No OR or COATRACK here. What information is bogus? Let's change it if there is any. The topic is super-notable and an interesting aside to List of legendary kings of Britain and Ancestry of the kings of Wessex. It could be a group header page for various similar ones such as the Ancestry of the kings of Saxony and Ancestry of the kings of Mercia. The other pages being deleted are the manuscript sources that needed a link in order to make this one.Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 20:44, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- You shouldn't create pages for the sole purpose of being sources for other pages. Likewise, the fact that you are super-interested in something is insufficient to demonstrate that the material is super-notable. And no, we don't want the other pages you have named, which are equally inappropriate. Quit trying to turn Misplaced Pages into a repository for sketchy genealogy. Agricolae (talk) 21:42, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- What is sketchy about it? I've added some illustration that I hope will clarify. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 21:52, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. Not independently notable. Paul, I think it would be best if you waited to let these discussions come to consensus before creating further articles, in case the consensus is that this material is not notable. I suggest the closer closes this in conjunction with Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Genealogia Lindisfarorum and possibly also the merge at Talk:Anglian collection, if enough people have commented there, since they are all related discussions. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:57, 19 November 2012 (UTC)