Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kingdoms of Great Britain


 * 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. WP:SYNTH / WP:FORK ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 10:34, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Kingdoms of Great Britain

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Some sort of weird original research/content fork. Any notable content is amply covered at many other articles like Countries of the United Kingdom, List of British flags, List of British monarchs, etc, etc. Biruitorul Talk 23:52, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete It is kind of an interesting hodgepodge of different tidbits of United Kingdom history, but as the nominator says, all of this is covered in other articles. Mandsford 01:02, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Novel moniker? If that would be the phrase. Dupe. (talk) 01:41, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete This reads more like someone's school essay than an encyclopedic article. Resolute 01:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete this article is filled with massive amounts of HTML, and is formatted in a manner other than that used in Wikipedia articles. 70.29.210.155 (talk) 05:39, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Not Delete
 * The (primary article) Kingdom of Great Britain; such articles mentioned by the proposer; and all other (Wiki-history) Articles, define origins of (KoGB) as the 1707 Act of Union. This is insisted upon, because the 1606 “Act of Union”, (English & Scottish Parliaments) has no legal basis in law? Re: the 1707 Act, was legislated by a new “British Parliament.” These other articles are important, in their own contexts, and in perspective to each other. However, all are written from “post-1707” political, legal, &/or ideological perspectives.


 * This Kingdom(s) of Great Britain, defines the origins of (KoGB) as a 1606 Act of Union. Notable content, includes the full Quote of the 1606 Act, (unpublished in over 300 years); with Timeline citations of all the legislators and procedure, (1603-06) & (C.16 to C.18th). This Article also emphasises the first and last Houses of the Tudors, Stuarts and Hanover, as successions from two female rulers, their royal styles, naval histories, and genealogies; histories of such relevant Flags and Arms of the Kingdom(s) of England, and of Scotland. The Article especially emphasises the “bearing of flags,” from both 1606 & 1707 Acts of Union, specifically from a historical naval perspective, of such kingdoms being an island.


 * This article is not about post-1707, British, political, legal, &/or ideological perspectives. Kingdom(s) of Great Britain is a perspective from Kings and Queens, of such Kingdoms, in naval defence of their realms; their evolutions of our national identities; C.16th - C.18th. Stephen2nd (talk) 15:01, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You may want to review WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:SYNTH, WP:COATRACK and a slew of other violations this logic implies. - Biruitorul Talk 17:17, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I have answered your question on notable content, and lack of coverage in other Articles. This is not WP:NOR, (prior publication-refs), and my SYNTH details its Verifiable facts. (KoGBetc1707+), doesn’t cover the periods (1603-1707) which are historically relevant. The 1606 Act of Union and proclamation are verifiable facts, of English-Scottish history. These eras of history, as reflected in the Article, are within all Wiki-rules, and have an as-equal importance in history, as other eras do.Stephen2nd (talk)
 * Comment Union of the Crowns for dynastic union with James VI. It also violates most of WP:MOS, has terrible sources WP:RS, and skips over the entire civil war/restoration. --Savonneux (talk) 20:44, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete or merge. The article title is confusing, the introductory text is confusing and inaccurate, the format is poor, the references are poor, and so forth, per other commnts above.  Having said that, there appears to be some information in the article relating to the activities in and around 1606 which - if properly referenced and formatted - would be a useful addition to the encyclopedia, probably best as an addition to the article on Union of the Crowns.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * PS: similar arguments apply to this article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. If this article is intended to cover the history of the kingdoms of England and Scotland from the Union of the Crowns through the Acts of Union, it does so in a profoundly opaque way. An article on that subject is potentially useful, but I see no reason why it should have this title or any of this content.--Cúchullain t/ c 12:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. This is interesting to probably nobody but me and the creator, but it is not an encyclopedia article.  Userfy? Bearian (talk) 20:45, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Well it is interesting. Interesting in that it somehow skips over the entire Interregnum without even a footnote, it's more like Stuart period (England).--Savonneux (talk) 07:00, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete The content is interesting but likely duplicitous (as previously mentioned) and, well, it hurts your eyes to look at it. The article is odd and presented in such as way as to be difficult to process or understand contextually. Besides, dear ol' Wiki doesn't look like that page at all. Needs serious cleanup to stay. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 03:13, 30 May 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares
 * 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.