Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of consorts of Bar


 * 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:V compliance is mandatory for all content.  Sandstein  12:47, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

List of consorts of Bar

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Totally unsourced. At first glance, this looks like it's well sourced. Until you actually look at the references and discover that they're all just links to other wikipedia articles. Beatrice of Paris, for example, is referenced to List of consorts of Lorraine, which in turn doesn't have any source for its Beatrice of Paris entry.

This was discussed seven years ago, at Articles for deletion/List of consorts of X, where it was kept. wrote in his close that there was, a strong recommendation to source the material. Nobody's bothered to do that in the ensuing years. So, we've still got a huge mess of WP:INTERESTING, but non-WP:V, material. I have not yet looked closely at the other articles included in that AfD. I suspect they're more of the same, but let's start with one. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:23, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:53, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:53, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:53, 9 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete - there are many, many of these lists, where the fact that it is a list and not an article has allowed a shellgame that bypasses policies (WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:N, WP:IINFO, WP:NOTGENEALOGY and other aspects of WP:NOT, WP:PROPORTION, WP:CIRCULAR, etc.). Once made, they rarely get policed or the lack of verifiability improved. This is a particularly egregious example.  I say nuke it. Agricolae (talk) 21:33, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Without verifiability, notability is not inherited. Trillfendi (talk) 21:41, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. Lists are problematic because they are different to articles, and have their own guideline page: Stand-alone lists, which seemingly allows lists to be created without the need for sources: WP:LISTVERIFY. Removing lists like these can be difficult because there are few policies and guidelines that give clear advice on when a list should be deleted. If I had time enough and energy, I would write a notability guide for lists, but I don't. However, if someone else wishes to write such a guideline, give me a ping and I'll certainly help out where I can. SilkTork (talk) 22:46, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I have to say, I am not reading this policy the way you are. Not at all.  It explicitly says that stand-alone lists are subject to the same rules as other articles regarding verifiability and sourcing, and that when a statement is made a source must be provided.  It does say that unless it is one of the required circumstances (a direct quote, a BLP fact, or anything previously or likely to be challenged), an inline citation may not be necessary, but that is not the same as a source not being necessary and it goes on to say a References section is appropriate when inline cites are not used.  Agricolae (talk) 00:02, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * If the list contains little other than the items in the group, then it appears it needs little to no sourcing - it gives List of fruits as an example. SilkTork (talk) 01:04, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Again, "It is generally presumed that obviously appropriate material, such as the inclusion of Apple in the List of fruits, does not require an inline citation." (emphasis mine) Anyhow, an apple may obviously belong in a list of fruit, but there is nothing obvious about the inclusion of Matilda of Swabia as a 'consort of Bar', let alone all of the extra information about her, such as that she was daughter of Duke Herman II, or Ermentrude of Burgundy being born in 1050/1055, or Beatrice of Paris dying 23 February 1003.  No, that policy makes it clear that WP:V applies to lists, and that non-obvious 'statements' (which is, in effect, what each table cell represents) "should be sourced where they appear". Agricolae (talk) 05:35, 10 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep I agree that the "references" are useless, but, in the case of the example you mentioned, the article Beatrice of Paris does have two sources. Lists have the advantage that it is possible to include members who are not individually notable, or who do not yet have their own Wikipedia article, and a redlink indicates the need for one. WP:NOTGENEALOGY actually says "Family histories should be presented only where appropriate to support the reader's understanding of a notable topic." Rulers of states or provinces are notable, and even where the consort is not notable in themselves, knowing relationships between a ruler and their wife's or mother's family supports understanding of the topic. I did notice, googling "countess of Bar", that in fact there are three places called Bar, Bar-le-Duc (which this article relates to), Bar-sur-Seine, and Bar-sur-Aube, and there were countesses of all three. It would probably be useful to indicate somewhere (perhaps on this page, perhaps on the article Duchy of Bar) that this relates only to the first. (French Wikipedia has an article Liste des comtes de Bar-sur-Seine.) I would suggest that 'List of countesses and duchesses of Bar' is a more obvious page name, however. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:49, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Beatrice of Paris does have two references, but do they contain the information being reported on the List page? Who can tell given that entire books (without page numbers) are listed for what is likely simply passing reference. I seriously doubt it, particularly since her own page places her death more than a decade earlier than the List does.  Further her page says absolutely nothing about her being Countess of Bar, and I have little faith that the cited sources give this detail either.  How then does the presence of two references on her page in any way make the information on the List verifiable, as is required? As to NOTGENEALOGY, generalities aside, some of these tables give much more trivial genealogical details (e.g. naming an ancestor 8 generations back because the table compiler thought it was interesting).  A list can be a useful way of consolidating information for people who don't themselves have a page (nor should - there is no reason so many of these should be redlinked), but the subject of the list has to be notable, and the material given has to be noteworthy and verifiable, just like the rest of Wikipedia.  The real question I would ask: is a collection of mostly non-notable people really notable as a group themselves purely on the basis of having been married to members of a notable class, or is this list and others like it really just a WP:NOTINHERITED/WP:IINFO/WP:NOR datadump?  I think the latter. Agricolae (talk) 21:00, 10 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:300:C930:F9ED:DB25:E38D:482C (talk) 21:51, 12 January 2019 (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.