Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Origin of the Bagratid dynasties

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 no consensus. Vanjagenije (talk) 01:05, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of the Bagratid dynasties

Origin of the Bagratid dynasties (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)

It appears that when this article was originally created by a well-intending user in 2006, it was unreferenced and written as a narrative with no clear sourcing. Almost a decade later, the article either still lacks sourcing for essential points contained herein, some of which have remained unsourced for years, or contains sourced SYNTHESIS compiled in a way that formulates conclusions which may or may not have been intended by the original authors. This article has not added anything new or relevant to the discussion of dynastic origin that is not already found on the Bagrationi page. Rather, it has created an additional venue for controversy and repeated conflicting edits and counteredits. When stripped of unsourced material and synthesis, this article would at best merit being a section or a subsection in the main article. Damianmx (talk) 03:23, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There seem to be a novel AfD reason expressed by the proposer. I have not seen "has had too much editing warring on it" used as reason to delete before. We don't delete articles to make life easy for editors! Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:32, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 04:09, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 04:09, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:49, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, and recreate as a redirect to Bagrationi dynasty#Origins. Note that there is also an article Claim of the biblical descent of the Bagrationi dynasty. The nominated article is not needed. – Fayenatic London 21:16, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Claim of the biblical descent of the Bagrationi dynasty deals specifically with the biblical claims and Davidic descent of the Bagrationi dynasty not the other history surrounding it. This article has strong potential to be expanded like that very same article which was also nominated for deletion. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 01:22, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The difference between the two articles is that Claim of the biblical descent of the Bagrationi dynasty was created and mostly written/sourced as recently as 2014, and was nominated solely on notability/original research grounds, whereas this articles has been in its dire state for an entire decade and tells us nothing besides that the dynastic origin has been a subject of speculation and dispute. Even if this article was to be somehow expanded, it would not merit a page separate from the Biblical descent page, as the latter is also part of "origin" hypotheses, albeit a bloated one.--Damianmx (talk) 16:31, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, the article is redundant. Most of info refers to origins of Bagrationi not of Bagratuni. Even the title of the article sounds a bit illogical as all we see there is theories about origin of one dynasty that is Bagrationi. Info can be always expanded in the origins section of Bagrationi dynasty itself. Jaqeli 13:47, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep An article titled "origin of ...." can hardly be called synthesis because the origin of any ruling dynasty would form an essential part of the study of that dynasty. And plenty of sources have content on that origin. Nor can I see anything "illogical" about the title: the title, with its "dynasties" wording, refers to the common origin of both the Bagratuni and Bagrationi branches, and possible expansion could include content on its other branches too (there were more than just two). Of course the Bagratuni dynasty and Bagrationi dynasty articles will have content that is duplicated in this article, but this article can explore the subject in more detail, detail not appropriate for these other articles which cover a far wider time scale. Arguably, the Claim of the biblical descent of the Bagrationi dynasty should go, and its content merged into this article. The only strong argument against such a merge would be that there might be too much content to be merged. However, if the latter article is kept, an article which is about the mythical origin, how can the deletion of an article about the actual origin be justified? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:02, 26 January 2016 (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.