- Family tree of Confucius in the main line of descent (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)
Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary#Wikipedia is not a genealogical dictionary - Prisencolin (talk) 00:53, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Daduxing (talk) 10:24, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a perfectly good encyclopedia entry. genealogy is not dictionary related. If you think it is like a dictionary entry it could be because it is basically a list stub. rather than deleting it, it could be linked to the actual people mentioned in it, most of which are notable (in China).
A Guy into Books (talk) 15:01, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
Im going to expand on this in light of the person below complaining about the fact this is about China. The fact that some people cant read the sources which are Chinese is exactly why this article should be here for people who cant read Chinese and who wouldn't otherwise know the information presented in this article. this article is similar to others like Genealogy of the British royal family or Genealogy of the Rothschild family etc. it could be improved, to be more like House of Tudor or House of Stuart.
A Guy into Books (talk) 19:32, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:37, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:37, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:37, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete this is cruft. The references are mostly in Chinese; many are trivial or are links to the Chinese wikipedia and have no weight at all; some are biographies from sources that I can't determine the reliability of. There are enough gaps in the descent (that have no WikiLinks/sources) that I see no reason to keep this article. A specific list of notable people claiming direct descent from Confucius might be notable, but this page doesn't have sourcing/data to allow for creation of that. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:54, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. This is a terrible article, but it could be turned into a good one. At the moment, it is too focused on genealogical information and undoubtedly fails WP:NOT. However, if you read the relevant section of the Confucius article, you will see multiple RSs making clear that Confucius' family line is notable (not merely that his descendants are notable, but the actual family tree is notable) and discussed in multiple RSs (as per WP:GNG). I remember seeing coverage of the publication of the last edition of the genealogy on a CCTV national news bulletin. There's also a RS suggesting that a Republic of China (Taiwan) sinecure follows this family tree. All the information is verifiable (and pace Power~enwiki, we don't require sources to be in English).
- IIRC my old paper Longman Encyclopedia had appendices, such as a list of UN member states and a list of English/British kings and queens. Once upon a time, we used to allow subpages of main articles, and this is the kind of topic that would have fitted well as a subpage of the Confucius article. Since WP doesn't have appendices or subpages (see WP:SPINOFF), then we should probably keep this for the stand-alone article that it could become. Matt's talk 12:17, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This article is indeed terrible. It would possibly be more suited for the Chinese Wikipedia where the sources can be verified and validated or deleted. It is going to be almost impossible for the English Wikipedia to do anything with this except through up our hands.Wjhonson (talk) 17:29, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]