Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Ancestry of the kings of Britain

My "delete" closure conflicted with another, so here's what my rationale would have been: Consensus to delete is clear, not only based on numbers, but also on strength of argument.Looking at the "keep" opinions, Tommy Pinball's consist only of an incorrect statement about the "delete" opinions (they are not, in fact, ad hominems), and DGG seems to say that the topic as such is worthwhile; but that does not counter the argument that this particular article is original research (and otherwise strongly deficient) and as such ripe for deletion. And Paul Bedson's proposal to redirect to a nonexistent page just makes no sense.  Sandstein  20:47, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Frankly, I would have been happy to allow your well-reasoned closure to stand in place of mine. This was pretty much my thinking except that I discounted DGG's keep for a different reason. DGG, who is an editor I greatly respect, argued that the topic is notable. Keep but improve is a valid argument in such cases, but this was completely negated by the subsequent revelation that such an article, Anglo-Saxon royal genealogies, already existed. SpinningSpark 23:18, 27 November 2012 (UTC)