Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canadian Royal Family


 * 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 of the debate was: I closed as a delete at first, but there appears to have been a merge done to Monarchy in Canada, so this needs to be a redirect with the edit history preserved. --Sam Blanning(talk) 16:57, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Canadian Royal Family
There are a number of problems with this page.
 * 1) The "Canadian royal family" is the British Royal Family. Any relevant info about the former will be covered in a page on the latter. If we are to pretend that the British Royal Family somehow simultaneously exists as a distinct "Canadian" family, and that this family in turn deserves a full page, we may as well make 16 different pages for the Jamaican Royal Family and the Belizean Royal Family and all the countries where the British Monarchy reigns.
 * 2) Any relevant information about the monarchy as a Canadian institution belongs on the Monarchy in Canada page.
 * 3) The whole page exists primary for partisan monarchist propaganda purposes. No one outside of the Canadian monarchist subculture even believes in the idea of the "Canadian Royal Family" and even they only use that term to try and win supporters to their case.user:J.J. May 21, 2006
 * Delete for obvious reasons. As a Canadian, I think this article is silly. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 20:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete- Agree. The royals listed are all British. Also the list of Royals in the Canadian government website is not very reliable as it still lists Princess Margaret (dead since 2002); Princess Alice (dead since 2004) and Sir Angus Ogilvy (not even a royal and also dead since 2002). Astrotrain 20:23, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete- Agreed 100%. --SFont 20:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete- A foolish article, agree in full. --Monkeywrench Tactical
 * Delete . The Canadian throne is separate from the U.K. throne, but the royal family is the same. -Will Beback 21:05, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge/redirect. On second reading I see some useful information on this obscure topic. that might not be in Monarchy in Canada, which is long and comprehensive. Move back anything that isn't already there. -Will Beback 08:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge and Delete I found this interesting and I didn't that this was how it worked.  The important info here should be moved to, Monarchy in Canada and British Royal Family. --Dakart 21:16, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Monarchy in Canada. Captainj 22:13, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge anything useful, then redirect. Do not delete as this is a useful link.  See what links here. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 23:16, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * For the love of God, delete Ardenn  23:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Off with its 'ead. The Tom 23:36, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per above. Homey 01:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Monarchy in Canada per Captainj. jgp 02:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Monarchy in Canada as per above. &mdash;Zero Gravitas 02:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as rediculous and per nom. --Strothra 02:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. I can't believe we're going through this again ... CJCurrie 04:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Cedars 06:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete this is plain silly --Lholden 06:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I think the article should be kept because of the fact that Canada is still nominally a monarchy and it sheds light on Canada's form of government. FDR 12:12 PM May 22, 2006
 * Um, not really. The Royal Family per se has no constitutional role or legal existence in Canada.Homey 16:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * That's what Monarchy in Canada is for. jgp 16:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep - for the above reasons. (the following has been moved here from the top of page-Homey):Note: This article contravenes none of the cardinal content policies of Wikipedia. "The whole page exists primary for partisan monarchist propaganda purposes" - That's a POV assertion, and should be stricken from this page. Not one single "monarchist" source has been cited - all are government of Canada sources, a book on Canadian constitutional law, as well as the Queen's own words. --gbambino 15:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep unless every source mentioning a Canadian Royal Family can be undoubtedly refuted. --Ibagli 20:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Doesn't matter if sources can be refuted or not. There is just no reason for 2 articles on the same family. --Woohookitty(meow) 02:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. The Canadian monarchy is simply the British monarchy with a slightly different constitutional relationship. Creating a separate page for it would be the same as creating 10 different pages for one person, just because he or she has 10 relatives who have different personal relationships. --MC Rufus 01:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect as per Captainj. --M e rovingian { T C @ } 02:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * '''NOTE: Additional discussion between individuals has been moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Canadian Royal Family in order to keep this page relatively uncluttered. Homey 00:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't see anythink wrong with it Brian | (Talk) 19:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Redundant. British Royal Family covers the same ground. See the section "Commonwealth realms" within that article for further proof. --Marysunshine 03:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete text and redirect page to British royal family. And then do the same with Australian royal family, New Zealand royal family, Belizan royal family, Saint Lucian royal family etc etc. The article is redundant. Natgoo 12:14, 26 May 2006 (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.