Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of regnal numerals of future British monarchs


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 00:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

List of regnal numerals of future British monarchs

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

I rarely AFD articles, but hopefully this complies with procedure. The article seems to to be based on a discussion here which was not made policy as the monarch (presumably via the Royal Prerogative) is not bound to follow the advice given (see Talk). As a whole, the article seems to violate WP:CRYSTAL and WP:OR. As an alternative to deleting the article, I can only think it should be named something along the lines of List of possible numerals of future British monarchs, but even then I imagine it'd fall under WP:CRYSTAL. Craigy (talk) 03:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Possible keep This does seem to be an important topic. However the article was almost impossible to follow for me, a poor American.  Perhaps an article on the general principles involved in British monarchical names is what is needed. Northwestgnome (talk) 04:38, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Rewrite and rename to List of multiply recurring regnal names of British monarchs and delete the top section that talks about the future theoretical monarchs should most of the Royal family die. 76.66.201.179 (talk) 06:38, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete this appears to be original research and speculation (the give away phrases are: "According to Churchill's suggestion..." and "For the purposes of this table, it is assumed...") Nick-D (talk) 07:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete agree that this basically original research and doesn't have much encyclopedic worth. Adequately covered in the paragraph at List of British monarchs. I dont see much worth in all the speculation. --neon white talk 08:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep but rewrite and simplify and as to sub page of the List of British Monarchs--Moloch09 (talk) 11:36, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per Neon white. This is an obvious case of WP:OR and WP:CRYSTAL. Given that the previous British ruler named Llewelyn was known as Llewelyn the Last, what does the rule say the next one should be called? Only guesswork and crystal balls can say. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete It does explain this in the current "Monarchs of the United Kingdom" article rdunn  PLIB  13:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Reorganise/merge with Line of succession to the British throne, which is also an article that needs some help (not least because it's way too long). With all due respect to the previous posters, this is very far from "original research" because there's absolutely heaps of sources about the future of the monarchy.  And it's not crystal ballery with such a well-established line of succession.  So I'd !vote "keep and clean up" if it weren't for the fact that the Line of succession to the British throne could also use some major fixing.  Note that I'm not saying merge to "Line of succession to the British throne", I'm suggesting rather that material from "Line of succession to the British throne" should be merged to this article.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  15:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * What sources? The article currently contains no sources that discuss that. You will need to provide them here. I still maintain it is an original piece and speculatative. Although not a absolute analogy imagine a similar article concerning film sequels. --neon white talk 00:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - This is not about who succeeds. It's about what they might be called. If nothing else, all this talk of future monarches named 'Constantine IV' is a flagrant breach of WP:SYN. The line of succession has very little intrinsically to do with the content of this page, except for a bit of speculation about what certain current royals would be called if they kept their present names on accession. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think we're probably talking at cross-purposes. I believe you're criticising the current content of the article, and I agree there's a fair bit to criticise. My point of view is that Wikipedia could and probably should have an article with this title, but consisting of substantially different content largely drawn from Line of succession to the British throne, properly sourced and organised.
 * Because the title could support an article, I think the usual convention is that it's more constructive to fix the article rather than delete it.— S Marshall  Talk / Cont  16:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Articles need references, and not just a title. Can you find some reliable refs on this topic? Nick-D (talk) 11:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, I should imagine so. What I had in mind was to limit the "list of regnal numbers" to the first dozen names on the list of successors at the Buckingham Palace website.  It's not so much original research as basic arithmetic after that.  The only problem arises where there are Scottish monarchs and English monarchs with the same names but different index numbers, and the pattern's established (and sourced) via Winston Churchill's Hansard Answer (cited on the article at the moment).
 * On the other hand, some genius will then go through my arithmetic and add proveit tags, which means the article will be full of phrases like "The next monarch called Charles after Charles II will be called Charles III". I may not be able to find sources to prove that in matters of royal succession, as well as in pre-schooler arithmetic, 2+1=3; you'll just have to take my word for that.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  23:17, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * To make that clearer—we both know that the next president of the USA after Barack Obama will be the 45th President, right? It wouldn't be controversial to say that, but you might struggle to find sources.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  23:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Good point, an article about the potential ordinal number of future presidents wouldn't last long. --neon white talk 02:02, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep-but-Rename or at worst Merge. This isn't a "List" article as we define them and the content appears to be notable. This may go on one of the British monarchy pages, but I'd hate to see the material go away entirely. I can't cite chapter and verse why this content should remain in Wikipedia, but I'm going to go with my gut on this one. (I offer no proposed alternate names, but if there's a British monarchy wikiproject they should be consulted.) JRP (talk) 21:14, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge - it's an obviously useful list, but I'm not sure where it should go. Bearian (talk) 16:32, 24 March 2009 (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.