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


 * 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   redirect to Genealogy of the British Royal Family.  MBisanz  talk 21:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Descent of Elizabeth II from the Franks

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

See extensive discussion already underway at Talk:Descent of Elizabeth II from the Franks. Srnec (talk) 03:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. I don't see what the point of this article is. Yes, Queen Elizabeth II is descended from Charlemagne. But so is substantially everybody of European ancestry. It's just that her ancestry is traceable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Move to Genealogy of the British Royal Family. Now that this no longer holds any claims to 'longest family tree in the world' it probably deserves to be kept with all the other information about Elizabeth II's descent, including Descent of Elizabeth II from Cerdic. If the extension back to the Romans could be proved then it would probably deserve a stand-alone page but I'm not saying it can. Mark J (talk) 12:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - This is a completely indiscriminate collection of information; although the Queen is very famous, there are hundreds if not thousands of famous people - dozens of heads of state including President Obama, no less - who can trace their ancestry back to medieval European royalty and thus to the Carolingians. Conversely, the Franks in general, or even the Carolingians in particular, are no more relevant to such discussions generally than the tribes and ruling dynasties of the Magyars, Cumans, Svear, Iberian Moors, Norsemen, Welsh, Irish, etc. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Additionally nominate on the same grounds: Descent of Elizabeth II from Cerdic and Descent of Elizabeth II from William I. (Can someone sort out template for me, please?). all the relevant information belongs in Genealogy of the British Royal Family, which frankly needs a complete overhaul. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per Metropolitan90 and Alex Tiefling. We all descend from mitochondrial Eve and mitochondrial Adam, so descending from some Frankish war chieftain is totally non-notable compared to that. ¨¨ victor  falk  14:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.   —Agricolae (talk) 16:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - This page was originally entitle Descent . . . from the Romans, following a discredited set of connections and claiming to represent the longest pedigree on record, which while completely false at least gave a reason the descent was supposedly notable. When the problematic connection was removed and it was scaled back to Descent from Franks, it lost its original raison d'etre. What remains is simply an arbitrarily selected European descending from some other arbitrarily selected European, through an arbitrarily selected line.  There are (literally) a million different possible descents connecting the two, and no rationale is given for the selection of this particular line out of all the possibilities.  Additional connections are given for some of the spouses in the original line, but again, both the individuals to be included and the particular lines from those individuals seem to be chosen based on whim alone.  There are (tens or hundreds of) thousands of people in WP who descend from the Franks (the entire French nation, for starters) and likewise Elizabeth II descends from people of every nationality in Europe and many beyond, so why this one page? Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and everything about this page is indiscriminate. Regarding the suggestion of a similar deletion of Descent from Cerdic and Descent from William the Conqueror, those pages also need cleaning up, but at least an argument could be made for their retention because they have what this article lacks - relevance.  It is frequently stated (not entirely correctly, but that is not our problem) that Elizabeth II owes her rule to direct descent from William the Conqueror, and more generally that the rulers of England (and hence Britain) are representatives of the nascent state of Wessex, the rulers of which traced their right to rule to descent from Cerdic. Thus in both cases, the descents are actually invoked in defending royal right. In the case of descending from the Franks in general and Arnulf in particular, there is no such claim to relevance. Agricolae (talk) 17:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - This page was originally entitle Descent . . . from the Romans, following a discredited set of connections and claiming to represent the longest pedigree on record, which while completely false at least gave a reason the descent was supposedly notable. When the problematic connection was removed and it was scaled back to Descent from Franks, it lost its original raison d'etre. What remains is simply an arbitrarily selected European descending from some other arbitrarily selected European, through an arbitrarily selected line.  There are (literally) a million different possible descents connecting the two, and no rationale is given for the selection of this particular line out of all the possibilities.  Additional connections are given for some of the spouses in the original line, but again, both the individuals to be included and the particular lines from those individuals seem to be chosen based on whim alone.  There are (tens or hundreds of) thousands of people in WP who descend from the Franks (the entire French nation, for starters) and likewise Elizabeth II descends from people of every nationality in Europe and many beyond, so why this one page? Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and everything about this page is indiscriminate. Regarding the suggestion of a similar deletion of Descent from Cerdic and Descent from William the Conqueror, those pages also need cleaning up, but at least an argument could be made for their retention because they have what this article lacks - relevance.  It is frequently stated (not entirely correctly, but that is not our problem) that Elizabeth II owes her rule to direct descent from William the Conqueror, and more generally that the rulers of England (and hence Britain) are representatives of the nascent state of Wessex, the rulers of which traced their right to rule to descent from Cerdic. Thus in both cases, the descents are actually invoked in defending royal right. In the case of descending from the Franks in general and Arnulf in particular, there is no such claim to relevance. Agricolae (talk) 17:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge with Genealogy of the British Royal Family. Viewfinder (talk) 18:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Descent of Elizabeth II from Cerdic and Descent of Elizabeth II from William I should be considered seperately per Agricolae since they have a different (and much stronger) raison d'être.  Don't feel strongly about Descent of Elizabeth II from the Franks though a (potentially selective) merge might be a good solution.  Eluchil404 (talk) 02:28, 8 February 2009 (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.