Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biological Relationship Between Elizabeth II And Her Husband Philip


 * 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. Tim Song (talk) 23:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Biological Relationship Between Elizabeth II And Her Husband Philip

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This is a good example of WP:NOT -- a subset of another article. It would be a fork but I don't see any example it was forked out and this information (this is unsourced) is already covered in the article on Elizabeth II. Shadowjams (talk) 00:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom; unsourced here, and is already detailed in Elizabeth II
 * Delete per nom. Blueboar (talk) 00:52, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - There are no sources in this article, and without sources there is no means of verifying the content. --Jesant13 (talk) 01:18, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete immediately as WP:BLP violation -- Both Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh and Queen Elizabeth II are living people. There's no reason to allow this type of unsourced content concerning them. Even if sources could be provided, this article would still violate WP:BLP by giving undue weight to the purported circumstances described. Emily Jensen (talk) 05:23, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The same statement is in the Elizabeth II article, with more relevance but less detail. It's unsourced, but that seems to be a simple fact to verify/disprove from any number of dozens of biographies. Shadowjams (talk) 06:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Their common ancestry and blood relationship is already covered elsewhere. DrKiernan (talk) 07:22, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete but no prejudice to recreation with sources. Outback the koala (talk) 07:41, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: This would be better placed as part of a family tree, with WIkilinks for the entries. Stephen B Streater (talk) 07:45, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per Nom. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  08:18, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as a duplicate of information already present in Elizabeth_II: Now the debate's underway I don't see much point in speedy tagging, but would this have qualified as an A10? Gonzonoir (talk) 08:22, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per mostly all above. I think it's not an A10, though; the only way I can see to CSD this is via WP:IAR. Frank  |  talk  11:47, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Notwithstanding the snickers and coughs generated by the title (punch line: "at least four times"), this is a bit of information that can be referred to in the article about the Prince Consort. Mandsford (talk) 13:06, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. This information is already covered in Elizabeth II. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:34, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per above comments. Plus it is redundant creating an article with information already found elsewhere.   Mr. C.C. Hey yo!I didn't do it! 02:00, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Sometimes you can tell just from the title that an article isn't going to be any good as written. Bearcat (talk) 05:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 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.