Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HaKohen family (Geonim)

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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:13, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

HaKohen family (Geonim)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Even though I originally created this page, I agree with the points made by @DavidFixit: on this articles talk page. This article was based on an extremely faulty Geni.com tree and a blog which presumably based it's self on said tree and thus it needs to be deleted. Ibn Daud (talk) 21:13, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:36, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:36, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Geni.com and Wikipedia are both used as sources, as well as Loeb Tree, which are all not RS. Since author is requesting, and there are no RS or anything, I think we can do a CSD, rather than wait for a full seven days for a AFD, or at least let it be a snow close. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 00:10, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DavidFixit (talk) 18:59, 26 July 2020 (UTC) @Ibn Daud - I am pleased that you understand the issue. It will be as well to point out that the erroneous patronymic designation has now been corrected in Geni, but there is still a need for someone who has enough knowledge to analyse the original sources for these genealogies to confirm the family tree as it exists now, and if necessary make further corrections on Geni platform, quoting the sources in the appropriate places there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidFixit (talk • contribs) 05:46, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - extremely dubious sourcing, unlikely to be verifiable using WP:RS only. Agricolae (talk) 19:34, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable sources. Oddly, if this were sourced from the Bible, I'd accept it. Bearian (talk) 19:49, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.