Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of living 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 delete. T. Canens (talk) 22:51, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

List of living princes and princesses

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Per WP:LISTCRUFT. Wikipedia is not Hello Magazine and this list is just an WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of everyone with a "prince" or "princess" title. Lists about lines of succession I can understand but I fail to see the point of this list. Betty Logan (talk) 08:26, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:32, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95  Talk   10:11, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep, primarily because I don't think a valid argument has been presented as to why the list should be deleted, and I can't think of a good reason to delete it. WP:LISTCRUFT is an essay and thus not a good reason for deletion, but this list seems to pass the criteria presented there anyway.  The list has a well defined scope, and the subject is neither too broad nor too narrow to be listed.  The list corresponds to a notable subject (that of princes and princesses), and the content is easily verifiable in reliable sources.  There are no concerns about neutrality, original research, or any of the other potential problems with lists mentioned at WP:LISTCRUFT.  The other stated reason for deletion, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, has absolutely no relation to this list.  It certainly isn't a plot summary, lyrics database, listing of statistics, or software update log.  I also don't think you can say the topic just isn't encyclopedic, as people with princely titles seems like the sort of thing you would expect a broad encyclopedia to cover (many of them are individually notable, and those that aren't would generally be expected to be mentioned somewhere, such as in the articles on their parents).  I just don't see any good reason why this list should be deleted. Calathan (talk) 19:30, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Simply being alive seems like very arbitrary criteria to me. Per WP:LISTN the grouping itself has to be notable, so in what way exactly are living princes more notable as a grouping than dead princes? Seems like very ephemeral criteria, and by your rationale you could impose any arbitrary criteria on a particular group of people and create a new list i.e. list of princesses through marriage, list of blonde princes etc, list of British princes etc. In the case of British princes we do have such an article since it is a notable set, but would you condone a list of living British princes for instance? Just because a particular group of people are notable doesn't mean we can contrive our own criteria and derive new lists. Are there any other lists of this nature on Wikipedia, where simply being alive is the criteria for inclusion? Betty Logan (talk) 20:14, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Being a living prince or princess doesn't seem like an arbitrary criteria to me. For almost any notable topic, it seems natural to me to cover the current state of that topic.  There are certainly other articles on Wikipedia limited to people who are alive, such as List of living centenarians, List of living cardinals, List of living former United States Senators, etc.  In the case of List of living centenarians, the article had a strong keep consensus at AFD recently (Articles for deletion/List of living centenarians (2nd nomination)), suggesting that such lists are considered acceptable. Calathan (talk) 21:07, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I can see why being alive is a notable characteristic in the case of centenarians since it is intriniscally tied to the topic i.e. you are notable for being alive and over the age of 100; in the case of senators and cardinals it seems as arbitrary as it does here. Being a living former senator, cardinal or prince is not inherently more notable than being a dead one is it? Betty Logan (talk) 21:42, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete with these titles widely bestoed to members of royal families, this could get unruly. Especially since there is no reason to limit it to members of monarchical families still in power. It also is a collection by shared name, not function. Since some people with prince as title are soveiregn while others are just potential heirs.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:05, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ☮  JAaron95  Talk   15:16, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete, arbitrary and indiscriminate with no informational value in this form. If anyone wants to see the living heirs to a particular throne, they will look to that particular throne's line of succession article, not to this awkward conglomerate. Little different than the list considered at Articles for deletion/List of teenage princes and princesses, also from the same creator, and which would have been deleted per the AFD discussion had the author not requested deletion before it was closed. postdlf (talk) 17:28, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete unnecessary, redundant WP:FANCRUFT and WP:LISTCRUFT, the OTHERCRUFTEXISTS argument up there is unconvincing Kraxler (talk) 21:30, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * My comments were not an "OTHERCRUFTEXISTS argument". I wasn't suggesting that all the articles I listed should be kept, and instead think that articles like List of living former United States Senators should be deleted (a list of all current people who are princes and princesses seems encyclopedic to me, while a list of former senators who happen to still be alive does not).  I merely listed other lists of living people because Betty Logan asked if there were others.  My comment about List of living centenarians was an argument to keep this list, but that was based on a consensus.  The whole point of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is that if the other articles haven't been discusses, then they might also be things that should be deleted.  Referring to a discussion that resulted in a consensus is a completely different matter.  I think some of the other comments in favor of deletion seem reasonable, but yours is basically a meaningless WP:ITSCRUFT argument. Calathan (talk) 15:25, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

keep Lest we forget this is an encyclopedia for general users, i.e., a novice history student might not know where to begin a search on particular throne. This is a useful starting-point entry. SnowdenFan (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:37, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No novice history student will get any useful info from this page. Kraxler (talk) 12:55, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, wow, your omniscience is impressive. I'm assuming this empirically-based assessment stems from your decades of experience as a professor (i.e., Who makes bold-faced, absolute statements like this...?) SnowdenFan (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 16:09, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I suggest you avoid ad hominem remarks, check out WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. By the way, the reason why "no novice history student will get any useful info from this page" is that the page has no historical info at all, it's a simple list of names and ages with partly faulty family relationships, no text, no history. Kraxler (talk) 16:30, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * -which is why the names are hyperlinked. SnowdenFan (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 16:54, 18 August 2015 (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.