Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Descent of Elizabeth II from William the Conqueror


 * 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. postdlf (talk) 16:19, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Descent of Elizabeth II from William the Conqueror

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Violates WP:NOTGENEALOGY, WP:NOR, WP:V and the page long ago lost any discernible relationship to the page name. Page was originally created with a simple defined purpose, as the name implies, to show the descent of Elizabeth II from William the Conqueror. This is possibly notable, but given that the descent is now covered in its entirety by Family tree of English and British monarchs, the line from Elizabeth to William representing almost 80% of the total content of that page, it is thoroughly redundant and as such represents a content fork. Since it was created, however, this page has become a catchall for a large range of descents that play no role in the descent of Elizabeth II from William I. These include: 1) the descent of king Henry II from Ecgbert of Wessex; 2) the descent of Henry I from Alfred the Great; 3) the descent of king Edward III from king Harold; 4) the descent of James VI of Scotland from Kenneth MacAlpin; 4) the descent of David I of Scotland from Ecgbert of Wessex; 5) the descent of Ecgbert of Wessex from the semi-legendary Cerdic; 6) the descent of James VI of Scotland from Svein Forkbeard of Denmark; 7) the descent of Edward III of England from king Stephen; 8) the descent of James I of Scotland from Rhys ap Gruffydd, king of Deheubarth; 9) the descent of Edward IV of England from Llewellyn ap Gruffydd, king of Gwynnedd; 10) the descent of James VI of Scotland from Brian Boru, king of Munster and Leinster; 11) the descent of Elizabeth II from Henry IV of England; 12) another descent of Elizabeth II from Henry IV; 13) another descent of Elizabeth II from Henry IV; 14) another descent of Elizabeth II from Henry IV - yes, that's right, four of them, but this one is special, we are told, notable because it is the 'longest', while the other three are notable as the 'shortest'. So, it has one pedigree that is actually appropriate to the page name, and 14 that have nothing to do with it.

The selection of the individual lines shown is entirely arbitrary. It has basically become a collection of descents of any English or Scottish king from some other king somewhere in the British Isles, chosen seemingly on a whim. Elizabeth II descends from the same people dozens, hundreds or even thousands of different ways, and the specific routes chosen are no better than others that could likewise have been chosen, so the choice of lines is arbitrary, and so is the choice of targets - links could also be traced to kings of York, kings of other Welsh kingdoms, and kings of Dublin and other Irish realms, all not shown.

Royal genealogies are often defended because they represent a claim to legitimacy, but of the 15 shown here, only 3, at most, serve such a role (the eponymous E II from W I, James VI from Kenneth MacAlpin, and Egbert from Cerdic), but two of the three have nothing to do with the subject of the page, and there is no logic for lumping them together. The Irish, Welsh, Harold II, Forkbeard, Stephen, and Henry IV descents all look to be original research or else they give undue weight to obscure genealogical trivia, and again they have nothing to do with the subject of the page. The pedigrees are unreferenced in their entirety, and while that may be acceptable for some of the thoroughly undisputed descents, but not for most of the accrued descents, either in terms of verifiability or as an indication that the descent merits mention on Wikipedia, that its inclusion does not represent UNDUE weight. It has been flagged as needing references since 2014, with no attempt being made to improve it. I have tried to restore the page to its original focus by deleting the material not germane to the page topic, but these attempts have been reverted by editors unwilling to discuss the serious issues with the irrelevant content. In the end, though, even were it stripped to its relevant core, the descent of Elizabeth from William, it would only be a content fork.

This is nothing but British royal genealogy-cruft, piled on to a page that at least once had a clearly defined and perhaps notable topic, but which if restored now would just be redundant.Agricolae (talk) 17:24, 28 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 17:30, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 17:30, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 17:30, 28 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Overgrown and redundant. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:54, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom (possibly redirect to Family tree of English and British monarchs, which goes back to Alfred the Great. The other descents, except that of the Scottish Crown are not notable.  I expect we have an article on the Scottish descent elsewhere.  Peterkingiron (talk) 22:48, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * That would be Scottish monarchs' family tree, plus one at Competitors for the Crown of Scotland. I think both of these are appropriate - no severe NOR violations or WEIGHT issues, as trees like these (though perhaps slightly less detailed generation-by-generation) appear in secondary sources, though the first tree becomes a bit too busy when it tries unnecessarily to recapitulate most of the material found on the second rather than focusing on the royal lines and using a pointer to the Competitors page for those interested.)  Agricolae (talk) 18:32, 1 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. Like Agricolae has said, this article has ballooned out-of-control into unmanaged cruft, and the Queen's decent from the Conquer is laid out in Family tree of English and British monarchs.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 00:59, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete as an unsourced OR fest. This was created more than ten years ago at a time when editors could just type stuff up because they wanted to and it's about time we rectify their mistake. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 01:21, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete This violates the rule of not geneology, and most of the page is not related to the name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:19, 4 July 2017 (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.