Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George V (descendant list)


 * 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   keep. No argument for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:06, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

George V (descendant list)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

The article is original research by a user which was originally inserted into the article House of Windsor. The data exists already at the ridiculously long article Line of succession to the British throne. Wikipedia is not a genealogy! 142.68.80.29 (talk) 01:45, 4 October 2009 (UTC) Delete As nominator. WP:NOT and WP:OR. 142.68.80.29 (talk) 15:15, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * What's wrong now? Do you have a name ?Pacomartin (talk) 01:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that usernames are necessary. And the problem is that there is original research about an unencyclopedic content. Double problem.

The Line of succession to the British throne article does not include data on birthdays, deceased people, or generational data, or even comprehensive list of illegitimate people. Minor details on Catholics are included. It is difficult to see family relationships from the article. While I agree that millions of geneological names are not required for Wikipedia, there are many ancestral tables in articles. Besides the descendants of George V are of particular geneological interest. Pacomartin (talk) 04:20, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * To whom? What makes it encyclopedic aside from nothing? 142.68.80.29 (talk) 05:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe keep In general I agree that an encyclopedia should consist of articles to read. However this list/table is well within the bounds of what WP really is, and has more interesting and important information than most WP pages.Northwestgnome (talk) 05:39, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep When a nominator says "I don't believe user names are necessary", my response is "I don't think this debate is necessary". Whatever issues the user of the IP address might have, those of us who sign our posts have a record that we're aware is open to being examined.  That notwithstanding, although Wikipedia's royalty/genealogy articles are a staple here, one-forty-two does have a point; this isn't sourced.  Mandsford (talk) 14:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ahem. I never said user names aren't necessary. I just chose not to use one at this time. 142.68.80.29 (talk) 15:14, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - verifiable and notable. This certainly needs sourcing but that is an editorial matter and not grounds for deletion. TerriersFan (talk) 16:15, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Individually, if a person is notable then they warrant an article. As a notable group, we do not need to individual describe each member anymore than we should add biographies for any member of the line of succession automatically. It is not within the scope of Wikipedia to create genealogies, it is arbitrary and not encyclopedic. See #2, etc. 142.68.80.29 (talk) 16:58, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - Part of the reason I assembled this table was most geneological sources that I found were spotty and missing names. For example see http://roglo.eu/roglo?lang=en&m=D&i=1152120&v=5&t=L&bd=0&color= . The 100th anniversary of the creation of the House of Windsor will be a celebration and an assembly of all the living descendants of George V is being proposed. The Catholics may be re-instated into the line (or not). The illegitimate bloodlines via Princess Mary are openly acknowledged. Even though Emily Shard is illegitimate she still applied to The Queen for permission to marry on 12 February 2008 in compliance with the Royal Marriages Act. It has also been proposed that the line of succession be modified to be limited to only the descendants of George V, rather than all the descendants of Sophia of Hanover. Since the descendants of George V almost all live in the UK, the line of descent would be more closely associated with the country. I think this article is a valuable resource and should not be deleted.Pacomartin (talk) 20:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Most of the the information may be located in various places in   other articles but not in as appropriate a format for many purposes . We can say the same thing in more than one way, if the presentation is helpful, we are NOT PAPER  Assembling available information and putting it into a table and clarifying it is not original research or synthesis--it's the routine way we write encyclopedia articles.     DGG ( talk ) 21:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe that WP:SNOW would be necessary... Mandsford (talk) 22:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I've added some external references that contain some of the same information. It is not completely up to date since it does not include some of the descendants of bloodlines that go through illegitimate lines. It also does not include summary statistical data. I move that we close this discussion.Pacomartin (talk) 08:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep I don't see information not confirmed by the individual articles. Dimadick (talk) 17:04, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia articles are not sources. All of George V's descendants are not encyclopedic nor is all of the information encyclopedic. Sure, we are not limited as a paper encyclopedia but do we have to be a joke? 142.68.80.29 (talk) 18:49, 5 October 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.