Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of couples with British titles in their own right


 * 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. The arguments for retention were not as strong as those for deletion. While the delete side asserted that the scope and choice of topic of the list were inappropriate, most of the keep arguments were WP:USEFUL, WP:INTERESTING, not convinced by delete !voters (how?), WP:OTHERSTUFF, etc. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 02:43, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

List of couples with British titles in their own right

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This page fails WP:SAL. It is not clear why a list of couples meeting this very peculiar description is of interest to anybody, or why these couples are more noteworthy than the couples composed of people who hold titles not in their own right, or no titles at all. More importantly, the article provides no indication that any reliable source outside of Wikipedia has ever taken an interest in this topic or composed such a list: this list is almost entirely unsourced despite containing many WP:BLPs.  Sandstein  17:12, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- --Darkwind (talk) 17:53, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  -- --Darkwind (talk) 17:54, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.  -- --Darkwind (talk) 17:54, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Does seem rather limited in scope and no reason to assume that this is notable.Slatersteven (talk) 21:00, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Why it's of interest to some people is unimportant&mdash;clearly it is, otherwise it wouldn't have been created. In any event, the nominator is right that the article does not appear to be notable. -Rrius (talk) 01:06, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - I think our core constituents (college and high school students) could use this list. Bearian (talk) 18:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * This does not address that it's unsourced. And how could such a list be relevant to any field of study? Wikipedia is not the Who's Who.  Sandstein   18:35, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shimeru (talk) 00:15, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep All the people listed have their own Wikipedia articles, so are notable by Wikipedia standards. A list of everyone with a title would be encyclopedic, and listing those who married others with such titles, is fine as well.   D r e a m Focus  16:22, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * We can't really assume notability by Wikipedia standers simply because they are included on Wikipedia.  Inclusion is not a indication of notability, we don't create articles because other articles exist.  -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 20:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * All nobility is notable, by Wikipedia standards, and if any didn't have an article already, they could easily be given one.  D r e a m Focus  05:17, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete This seems to border onto trivia. -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 20:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as this list topic or a definition for this list appears to have not been published anywhere else other than Wikipedia, as it does not have a verifiable definition and contravenes the prohibition on original research as illustrated by WP:MADEUP. If it has not be been published anywhere except within Wikipedia, there is no evidence that it is verifiable, let alone notable. To demonstrate that this topic was not created based on editor's own whim, a verifiable definition is needed to provide external validation that this list complies with content policy. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The list started to give an overview of a particular social phenomenon. Adding people with multiple honours (peerages AND titles derived from orders of knighthood) has resulted in the article becoming difficult to read and - as other users rightly remarked - bordering on trivia. It requires a good cleanup, no doubt. However, as far as the overall relevance is concerned, one may ask a very general question: 'Are peoples' lists relevant at all? What do they tell us?' And as far as unsourced information is concerned, that's a general problem in Wikipedia. There are many articles with a higher amount of unsourced information here, after all this is only a list that connects existing Wikipedia articles. It doesnt't make assumptions, it merely connects existing Wikipedia biographies. So if anyone really doubts a particular entry (or needs a citation), it is still possible to do some research on this, by using google or the printed Who is Who. This article is, at present, a first starting point for further research, nothing more. Summing up, if you desperately wish to delete this list because its existence annoys you so much, go for it - I just don't see a reason why this should be necessary. I think there are article candidates where this is more urgent. Good cleanup and refined rules for inclusion of names yes, but deletion no. ViennaUK (talk) 08:04, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Arbitrary list. Pointless list. Szzuk (talk) 19:13, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete per Szzuk, -- Nuujinn (talk) 00:27, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Amusing for trivia purposes only. Joal Beal (talk) 22:20, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep trivia is in the eye of the beholder. This is a topic in which there is reasonable interest and it can be compiled accurately; 2 X 2 =4 is not OR. That is sufficient justification for a list.  DGG ( talk ) 05:31, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, 2 X 2 = 4 is not OR, but as far as I understand such things aristocratic titulature (and whether it's derived or independent) is a bit more complicated than that and therefore does require reliable sourcing.  Sandstein   21:48, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep: I did not create the list, but I did add to it as best I could. I am not that attached to it, but none of the delete votes, to date, have yet convinced me that the list is non-notable. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 14:31, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to add that User:Andrei Iosifovich did a great deal of work, yeoman work at that. I hope he will add his opinion. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 14:34, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I hope you don't mind, but I find that position very frustrating. How are those favouring deletion ever supposed to prove it is not notable. In fairness, it is those who want to keep it who should explain why it's notable. So far, all we're getting is "I think it's interesting" and "nobility is inherently notable." First, the latter is simply false. There are many peers who don't have articles and may never have them because the only noteworthy thing about them is their peerage. More to the point, this isn't about the notability of nobles. Rather, it is about the notability of a subset of them. Can someone point to the source of notability of peers-in-their-own-right being married to one another? Where has this ever been listed or discussed in a reliable source outside of Wikipedia? -Rrius (talk) 23:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Rms125a@hotmail.com, please consider that WP:ILIKEIT is not considered a valid argument in such discussions. What matters, in terms of policy, is that this is an unsourced, user-compiled list of mostly living people, which violates the policies WP:NOR, WP:V and WP:BLP as well as the guideline WP:N.  Sandstein   21:44, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep The list interests me and I don't think the description is really so peculiar. Holding titles itself fulfils the notability requirement and the relationship is of public interest. If you disagree, go and delete List of fictional supercouples first before deleting the list about real people. Da Vynci (talk) 20:29, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Very good point, thank you. Go and delete List of fictional supercouples first before deleting the list about real people! ViennaUK (talk) 20:50, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Good point too, I also gotta admit. Give credit where credit's due. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 21:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Not really, I think. See WP:WAX: Just because we have many bad articles does not mean we should keep this one.  Sandstein   21:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per my response to Rms125a@hotmail.com, above. -Rrius (talk)
 * I agree that "being interesting" is not a ground for writing or keeping an article on Wikipedia, nor did I use that as a justification. I simply said the "no" side had not yet convinced me. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 18:54, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to add re noteworthiness -- almost all the entries had articles in their own right and there were no red-links. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 19:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Question How is that relevant? -- Nuujinn (talk) 23:37, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This absolutely arbitrary aggregation of facts is exactly that. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:38, 14 May 2010 (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.