Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Descendants of Queen Victoria and King Christian IX (2nd nomination)


 * 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, default to keep. Neıl ☎  10:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Descendants of Queen Victoria and King Christian IX
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

I work extensively with royalty related articles and am interested in topics like this personally, but I do not believe it is encyclopedic material. Wikipedia is not a genealogical repository and even the ancestry of some people on here is shaky at best, but the descendants of individual people is really pushing it. My suggestion would be to have a section on each monarch's page about their reigning descendants and let that be that. I don't think any real purpose is being served by showing the unions between these two monarchss' descendants. For the most part, it just happened. Wikipedia, lately, in the royalty related articles, has become cluttered with topics like this (some less encyclopedic). While the article is sourced, most genealogies can be, but again, we are not a genealogical repository. I suggest delete and then send to the user space or make a subpage of WP:ROYALTY. Charles 03:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete As nominator and userify or send to WP:ROYALTY. Charles 03:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete While there is some good information in this article; there is no reason for this article to exist per se. Since Victoria and Christian IX never actually did the horizontal hokey-pokey (as far as I know), there are no decendents of them both in any real sense.  There a people who have decendend from Victoria and from Christian IX, but to have an article like this implies something entirely different than the coincidence of several people sharing two ancestors.  This article is a clear novel synthesis as defined by WP:OR.  This is in the sense that while it is clear that all of these people are in fact descended from Victoria and from Christian IX, there is no reason for these two facts to be assembled into a single article.  This information has no reason to be conjoined in a single article. --Jayron32| talk | contribs  04:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete, the subject of the article seems a little arbitrary, why not any two other random monarchs? A lot of work has been done on it, so maybe worth Userfying if anybody wants it.  I should point out that the previous AfD is less than two weeks old, and ended as a unanimous keep, which strikes me as a little odd.  Lankiveil (talk) 07:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC).


 * Keep, the subject of this article is in fact not arbitrary nor does it violate WP:OR. From Theo Aronson's A Family of Kings:
 * "Indeed, between them, Queen Victoria and King Christian IX supplied Europe with the majority of its reigning sovereigns. If Queen Victoria was the Grand-mother of Europe, then King Christian IX was certainly its Grandfather, or, as he was known in his day, its Father-in-law."  Page 6.
 * "Most present-day European monarchs are descended from either Queen Victoria or Kign Christian IX (and, in many cases, from both)" Page 228.
 * "That Queen Victoria's descendants should have filled the thrones of nineteenth- and twentieth-century Europe is understandable; but that the family of the poor, unambitious and unimportant King of Denmark should have done the same is remarkable." Page 228.


 * I suppose the article could be split, but it seems to large to include in the articles on Queen Victoria and King Christian IX. And it would result in much repetition since of their 9 monarch grandchildren, only 3 are descended from just one and did not marry a descendant of the other.


 * The article was not meant to be an exhaustive list of intermarriages between the descendants of Queen Victoria and King Christian IX, which it by no means is. Instead, it was meant to show the relationships between modern monarchies as presented in the referenced books and alluded to in several other wikipedia articles.  The article presents this as unions between the descendants of Queen Victoria and King Christian IX simply for clarification.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.150.233.137 (talk) 17:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep It's a legitimate encyclopedic topic, but should be renamed by adding the word "Royal" to the beginning -- obviously we shouldn't be interested in nonroyal descendants. It seems to be noteworthy that at the beginning of World War I, so many European royal houses were related to each other to such an extent. This article lays out the details. We want articles on notable, serious subjects that help our readers gain knowledge. This does that. Nor does the article have to be split, because the point of each of the two articles would be the same. This isn't geneology, this is history. Noroton (talk) 20:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. My instictive reaction was, Do we really need this?  However, I read the article, peeked at the cites, and read the above discussion. It seems notable to me, and far from OR. Perhaps rename per Noroton. Bearian (talk) 20:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - I nominated this for deletion less than a month ago, and am gladly arguing for its deletion once again. As I said then, this is a violation of WP:IINFO, in that the "article" is merely an overwhelming series of royals, whose only tenuous link is one of two common ancestors, and of WP:SYN, because no third-party references have been provided to establish the notability of the multitude of descendants had by Queen Victoria and King Christian IX. I stand by that assertion. Biruitorul (talk) 00:12, 8 January 2008 (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.