Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tomas ap Rhodri ab Owain Gwynedd

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:54, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tomas ap Rhodri ab Owain Gwynedd

[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)

Fails WP:BIO, WP:NOTGENEALOGY. This entry is entirely genealogical in nature and appears to have been created for solely genealogical purposes, to promote the claimed descents of much later Welsh families from the Gwynedd kings. There are no sources; the only footnote is not a citation, but a further unreferenced genealogical elaboration. No evidence of independent notability, and notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Agricolae (talk) 20:35, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 20:46, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 20:46, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page. It is part of the same genealogical web, and has been marked as unreferenced for almost a decade. While it contains biographical information, such as the claim that the subject is "Head of the House of Aberffraw" this presumption appears to be that of a Wikipedia editor, not of historians. Indeed, that such a title existed is a conceit. Agricolae (talk) 20:54, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- These people were potentially claimants to be Princes of Wales or at least of Gwynedd. However I do not think that anyone actively asserted such a claim at the time (other than Owain Glyndwr). The descent of the Wynn family is recorded in Burke's Peerage, s.v. [Williams]-Wynn, so that this is verifiable. This was a prominent gentry family in north Wales. The descent of Sir John Wynne 1553-1626 may be notable, as may be his History of Gwydir where he published the descent, but I doubt if many of the people who are links in the chain are notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:16, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. A genealogy may be notable (e.g. Anglo-Saxon royal genealogies or Kings of Germany family tree) without every name in it being notable. Srnec (talk) 15:27, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would even challenge the notability of the descent. The 19th century editions of Burke's that reported this are not WP:RS and Wynn's history is self-published, non-independent. We generally don't take such claims at face value, even (especially) if it would make the author a potential claimant to be the rightful ruler of a nation. Agricolae (talk) 17:33, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. This (claimed) descent is almost certainly not notable enough for an article. Srnec (talk) 18:39, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. The rationales of both Srnec and Agricolae are spot on. Fails WP:BIO and as per WP:NOTGENEALOGY. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:32, 3 August 2018 (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.