Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of living British princes and princesses


 * 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 no consensus. There is no consensus as to the usefulness of the list. Some find it utterly redundant, others find it useful for certain types of searches. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 16:31, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

List of living British princes and princesses

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Per Content forking, articles on the same subject should not be duplicated; we already have lists of British princes and princesses and a list of living British royals. DrKay (talk) 16:40, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 18:39, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 18:39, 24 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete I agree with what DrKay said. The material is almost a copy-pasted version of British prince and British princess. Besides the living royals are all listed at British royal family which holds exclusive information about all of the living and deceased members. Keivan.f  Talk 20:19, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. Useful list. Not everyone wants to scroll through huge numbers of deceased prince or princesses. Credit to the article creator for writing much more accessible content for the reader. Szzuk (talk) 20:57, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Apart from there not being huge numbers, the tables in the other articles are sortable. So, if you want to list the living ones, you simply click on the appropriate table header and they will all be listed at the top. DrKay (talk) 22:23, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:CFORK says as an article grows, editors often create summary-style spin-offs or new, linked articles for related material. This is acceptable, and often encouraged, as a way of making articles clearer and easier to manage. Szzuk (talk) 22:33, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * All the other articles are well-within the article size guidelines. There is no need for a split on those grounds. Besides, this isn't a split: it's a fork. DrKay (talk) 22:37, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The spin off is acceptable because it allows more detail about individual living princes and princesses than could practically be afforded in the large existing lists. Szzuk (talk) 22:48, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Based on your logic we could also create lists of living former presidents and first ladies of all the countries because it's too "hard" for the readers to scroll down a few inches or change the table headers!! This article is not a spin-off, it's a fork. Details about the living members are already available at "British royal family" thus there's no point in keeping this article. Keivan.f  Talk 00:55, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * By that logic there is no good reason for Princes and Princesses to be in separate articles. Feel free to merge them and then we can discuss how hard it is to scroll and change headers. Szzuk (talk) 10:50, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Why are you turning this into a gender-based issue? The argument here is that the current articles are sufficient enough and cover the essential material, yet they are not that huge to mislead the readers and get them confused. Keivan.f  Talk 23:32, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Any relevant information can be merged into the existing articles. British royal family is only 18kB, so can easily stand expansion and in no conceivable way could be considered a "large existing list". DrKay (talk) 07:49, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * But not everyone wants to read about the entire British Royal family, they want to read about the princes and princesses. Szzuk (talk) 10:50, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Apart from the Queen, the list is the same. DrKay (talk) 10:56, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I have no issue with a rename, is it something you would agree to? Szzuk (talk) 11:23, 25 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep I'm not sure I see why British princes are in a separate article from British princesses in the first place. WP:LISTN states that "There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists." Given how vague the guidelines are, in this case the only thing to do is think about it logically. For example, is this article useful and does it fulfill Wikipedia's goal as a source of all knowledge? I can certainly see myself finding this list more useful than separate articles about princes and princesses, therefore I believe this article should be kept. Lonehexagon (talk) 08:11, 25 March 2018 (UTC)::
 * They're not separate. They're at British royal family. DrKay (talk) 08:27, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * That's not a list of princes and princesses. Lonehexagon (talk) 03:22, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

*Keep. Obviously, I'm all for keeping it, and I will say that if accepted I will definitely work on improving the sources. ANewStarWillRise (talk) 05:05, 26 March 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 06:35, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Additionally, it should now be deleted under Criteria for speedy deletion. DrKay (talk) 07:21, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * That link says, "This applies to pages created by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block, and that have no substantial edits by others." I see in WP:BANREVERT that "If editors other than the banned editor have made good-faith contributions to the page or its talk page, it is courteous to inform them that the page was created by a banned editor, and then decide on a case-by-case basis what to do." This article has had edits from non-banned users. From my reading of the guidelines, even if an article is eligible for speedy deletion, we should still be evaluating it on a case-by-case basis like any other AfD. Lonehexagon (talk) 17:11, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment. I have no opinion one way or another about keeping/deleting this, but my reading of WP:G5 is that it doesn't apply.  -- RoySmith (talk) 03:23, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. As stated above, this article mirrors information already available in 3 other articles, and is therefore redundant. Drdpw (talk) 07:37, 9 April 2018 (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.