Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of teenage 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 speedy delete on request of author  ... disco spinster  talk  20:54, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

List of teenage princes and princesses

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I believe that this is a very arbitrary and trivial criterion on which to base a list. Moreover it is one that has a built-in inaccuracy risk, unless anybody is interested in constantly updating it TheLongTone (talk) 12:15, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete I know some magazines carry lists of most eligible bachelors and maybe even most eligible princelings, but this is trivia. Being teenage has no effect on the ability of an heir to ascend to a throne or do anything else. There are other problems: there's not a clear definition of who counts as a prince/princess.
 * I can't see a more general list of princes or princesses on Wikipedia, probably for similar reasons (there are articles on individual royal families, and List of current sovereign monarchs would lead you in the right directions). So it may be possible to have a list of princes/princesses regardless of age, but it would require some thought about the appropriate criteria. And segmenting by age seems totally inappropriate. Colapeninsula (talk) 13:35, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep I don't really see what the problem is. There are lists about literally everything on Wikipedia. How is this any more trivial than something like a list of Google Doodles in 2011 or a list of recurring Earth characters in Stargate SG-1? That's what Wikipedia is all about. Furthermore, removing 2 or 3 people from the list each year doesn't seem like that big of a task. It's also practical for certain countries to see how long until their heir apparent comes of age to rule. Alvaro B. (talk) 13:47, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Are they going to look for an article on teenage princes and princesses for that information? How about the one on their own country's royal family? Borock (talk) 17:24, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Those are completely irrelevant comparisons that provide no support for keeping this one. Your argument amounts to "Wikipedia has other lists, therefore it should have this one." Really classic WP:OTHERSTUFF. Your last sentence is a non sequitur as this list doesn't target heir apparents, but rather all descendants of any monarchs, and what qualifies someone as "of age to rule" will vary from country to country and so being a teenager doesn't necessarily have anything to do with that threshold. It's especially nonsensical to focus on that when merely achieving a certain age doesn't give anyone a throne if the previous monarch is still living (and just ask Prince Charles how long that can take). Perhaps most important, every monarchy already has an article about the succession to their particular throne (e.g., Succession to the British throne) that lists those in line and sets the terms for assumption. So it makes even less sense that anyone would look to an unlimited list of every country's princes and princesses rather than to the specific line of succession of the country they're interested in. postdlf (talk) 17:30, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete Seems like an arbitrary set of criteria, "descendant of monarch between 13 and 19 years old." I generally vote to delete lists of fictional characters, but even a list of "recurring Earth characters in Stargate SG-1" probably adds some new information to WP, while this one just presents existing information in a new format.Borock (talk) 17:05, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * P.S. If I had a 13 year old child I wouldn't want his or her name on this kind of list. Borock (talk) 17:10, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That's honestly a silly observation to make here given that this is a list of royalty, not of private citizens. I mean, the UK just put a baby's name on a coin. postdlf (talk) 17:30, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete, arbitrary and indiscriminate. No reason for indiscriminately listing all princes and princesses around the world together, no reason for arbitrarily taking a subsection of that group based on current age. No informational value to justify keeping, let alone the need to constantly update as people constantly age in or out of the group. postdlf (talk) 17:30, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete This seems like something suited for a monarchy fansite (if such a thing exists), not an encyclopedia. The age-based criteria for inclusion makes no sense and is obviously prone to significant change over time. § FreeRangeFrog croak 19:38, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - There's probably a good reason why this is, literally, the only "List of teenage..." article in the project. It is beyond trivial minutiae to take a large group (royalty) and pull an age-based sub-grouping out of it (teen royalty) and think you have something of any interest to a Wikipedia reader.  Why not  List of octogenarian princes and princesses?  List of blonde princes and princesses?  Note another arbitrary list created by the same user at List of living princes and princesses, which should go up for deletion as well.  All of this can be found at Royal family anyways. Tarc (talk) 19:50, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete WP:LISTCRUFT ukexpat (talk) 20:35, 6 July 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.