Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of salaries of royal family members


 * 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. Cerebellum (talk) 18:20, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

List of salaries of royal family members

 * – ( View AfD View log  of salaries of royal family members Stats )

Delete, but open to alternative solutions. I'm not sure what specific purpose is or could be served by this Wikipedia entry. I don't want to assume bad faith, but at the moment, it seems like one person, apparently aggrieved by the height of royals' salaries, wanted to stress how much this money is, connected to the (mere) fact that they are given these salaries and subsidies based on their relationship to a particular (hereditary) monarchy. Otherwise this list could just have been about the salaries of heads of state in general (of monarchies and republics alike), or just about monarchs without their relatives. I see no other rationale, really. We're missing a context why the public needs to know the salaries of royal family members in the first place. And which ones, by the way? There must be hundreds if not thousands of royals around the world, why are only 16 from 4 European countries mentioned? (And why all their middle names? Does this merely serve to ridicule them? "King Philippe of Belgium" –or "Saxe-Coburg-Gotha" if you prefer– would suffice.) Thus, the way it is framed is rather dubious, and seems to betray a particular antimonarchist POV.

Now, this is not at all to say monarchies and their costs are above criticism (I've written about republicanism myself, and quite a lot at that), but writing about it here on Wikipedia should serve to objectively inform the public on a commonly discussed topic within a set context, not to spread a particular ideology (if anyone thinks I've unfairly portrayed republicanism, they're welcome and in fact encouraged to correct me, too). It seems to me that this article is created and framed to push a particular POV, and is based on incomplete and original research. Although I think a legitimate discussion can be had on the finances of royal houses, this is not the way.

I've recently tried to give the right example in the article Monarchies in Europe. This has a clear context and limited scope, namely Europe, and it is about the total expenditure (not just the royals' salaries) of Europe's monarchical systems government compared to each other and republican ones (one should not simply critique one thing without reasonably considering the alternatives). This is an issue that is occasionally studied by experts such as the Belgian professor Herman Matthijs, and sometimes reported in (generally) reliable sources such as national newspapers or magazines, which are the kind of citations a Wikipedia entry needs. I would personally suggest the issue that the creator of this article tried to raise is best discussed there, and that this article be deleted. I would have proposed a merger of this article into Monarchies in Europe#Costs, but none of the sources provided seem to be reliable, and I think that the revelant issues pertaining to royal houses' finances are already covered in the latter article, making this one redundant. I'd like to hear other people's views and suggestions on how to solve this. Greetings, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:47, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:22, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:22, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:22, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:22, 29 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete because, as the nominator says, the sources do not appear to be particularly reliable, or measure the same criteria. The overall figures will be adequately covered by Monarchies_in_Europe and it is likely to lead to all sorts of WP:OR to conjure up figures for individual members of royal families. Sionk (talk) 16:47, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Members of royal families in many countries receive payments and subsidies of various kinds from national tax revenues, but in most cases this is not in the form of a salary, and the form of these payments varies widely between countries, so such a comparison is meaningless. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:29, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. It is obviously incomplete at the moment and thus overly selective - but it seems to provide useful content, and the content that is there is sourced. Overall cost comparisons between monarchies would be meaningless since such overall figures are stated without relation to the numbers of persons receiving those sums or what the sums are for. So, the contrary to the above delete assertions is true - the narrowly targeted data that is presented in this article is likely to be more meaningful and more accessible for comparison purposes. That someone might, in the future, OR in additional figures to the article is obviously not a delete reason: every article risks OR by their very existence. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 18:57, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I disagree that this list is in any way meaningful for comparison purposes. Here in the UK nobody in the royal family receives a salary by virtue of their royal position, so we could list Queen Elizabeth II in this article against a figure of £0.00, but some of them receive other payments from the public purse, such as from the Sovereign Grant. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:57, 29 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep List of salaries and Category:Wages and salaries show plenty of articles like this. It is clearly notable to see what people make, you helping to understand the situation better, and ample coverage about such things in each nation's media.  List should be expanded, and proper references found.   D r e a m Focus  23:07, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually Category:Wages and salaries has about two articles that are very vaguely comparable (Heads of State and US Judges), the remainder are general articles about wage related issues. Sionk (talk) 10:04, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Salaries of elected offices in France, Salaries of Members of the United Kingdom Parliament, Salaries of members of the United States Congress, Salary of Government Officials in India, Federal judge salaries in the United States, List of player salaries in the NHL, List of salaries of heads of state and government, MSPs' salaries, expenses and allowances, etc. I see a lot on the List of salaries which need to be added to that category also.  My point is, a lot of articles like this exists, since they get ample media coverage, and its encyclopedic to list this information.   D r e a m Focus  18:31, 30 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. It's preferable to cover this subject in articles such as Monarchy of Belgium, Monarchy of Denmark, etc., rather than in a list covering royals from all countries with monarchies. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:57, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a notable, interesting and sourced list, even though it is incomplete. My very best wishes (talk) 20:53, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. In addition, this list itself is illogical: it claims to focus on the costs of constitutional monarchy without the financial nor social benefits accruing to those countries with that system of governance. As the waggish former Queen of Netherlands once said, her role is to increase tourism and provide free media for her Holland: "It's like selling oranges." The United Kingdom keeps its royalty in part for the chance to sell stamps and to further increase the flood of American tourists. It's the net worth or net cost that matters; the gross cost of a system of government is a meaningless statistic, hence, this list fails. Bearian (talk) 18:08, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * While agreeing that this should be deleted, I'm not sure about your reasons. I'm sure that we in the UK could sell just as many stamps and attract as many tourists with another national treasure, such as Bruce Forsyth or John Lydon, as head of state, so judging the net cost is not something that we can reasonably do. My objection to this article is that salary is only a small part, or no part, of even the gross cost to a nation of a royal family. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:33, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Adam9007 (talk) 18:37, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment. Trying to compare the salaries of royals from different countries may be misleading because not only are they (often) paid in different currencies, but there may be great variations in the additional perks, subsidies, benefits, etc. that the monarchs of different countries receive, which may be difficult to convey in a list like this. If non-European royals were added to the list, as they probably should be if the article is kept, the differences in comparability will be even more significant. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:06, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment The list could list many smaller lists that show the information per country. Its just easier to keep everything here until the list grows too big, then divide it as necessary.    D r e a m Focus  14:33, 7 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete -- this data is not meaningful as it does not take into account subsidies or perks. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:13, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps that could be added.  D r e a m Focus  19:12, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete coverage in articles is preferable to here. The list as currently exists seems to focus on a few European countries (possibly because of lack of reliable sources elsewhere) and at worst could be read as not having a neutral point of view by emphasizing those monarchies listed in Western Europe. This last point is especially concerning given the political controversy in some countries around salaries and subsidies for royals. Right now it focuses on such a small group of countries that those not familiar with how Wikipedia works could assume that these are the only countries that subsidize royal family members, which is not true, and has potential BLP and POV issues in my opinion. Delete it. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:45, 17 November 2016 (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.