Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of members of the British Royal Family through history


 * 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 for deletion, default to keep. Sandstein (talk) 10:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Lists of members of the British Royal Family through history

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

Arbitrary and subject to change indefinitely if any number of parameters are used. We have categories and articles for these people, we don't need a list of dates otherwise random dates for these things. As explained to a user who edited the page, while it may be interesting it is not an encyclopedic topic. Charles 05:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete/Send to user space As nominator. Charles 05:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 *  Delete  – See Below - This was a tough one, I could see a reference list or call it genealogy list that could be useful and informative.  However, the statement: “there is no strict legal or formal definition of who is or is not a member of the Royal Family”, in the opening paragraph just makes this a list that as the nominator pointed out; “…Arbitrary and subject to change” at the opinion of any editor, in turn making this extremely Point of View, . Sorry to say what a shame, the editor put a lot of time and effort into the project. ShoesssS Talk 05:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. KTC (talk) 08:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. There are two arguments given for deleting it. It's arbitrary and it's not encyclopedic. I can't agree with the first argument as the list isn't arbitrary. It's not chosen by whim or without regard for any underlying reason. There's a clear criteria and reason given for inclusion and that criteria kind of makes sense (I wonder if a source be found that supports it?). As there's a clear criteria, it's not subject to change indefinitely depending on any number of parameters because the parameter is already set. I'm not sure about the second argument though as no reason was given to support it. Why isn't it encyclopedic? Ha! (talk) 08:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment There are no set parameters. If I wanted to, I could list every day between the death of Queen Victoria, or earlier, and now and list members of the British Royal Family. We have categories listing them anyway and other articles: British Royal Family, British prince, British princess, British monarchs' family tree, Genealogy of the British Royal Family and so on. I imagine some of those are even shaky, this one more so. Charles 19:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The set parameter (or rules or criteria) for inclusion in the list is stated on the page "those carrying the style His or Her Majesty (HM), or His or Her Royal Highness (HRH) are generally considered members [of the royal family]." Can you clarify exactly what you regard as being arbitrary? Are you saying that the list is arbitrary because who qualifies for inclusion in the list in the first place is arbitrary or because how the list is ordered/sub divided/sub set is arbitrary? If you mean the later then that's not really a problem, once you have a good criteria for what goes into a list it's extremely easy to reorder it into a more sensible ordering. I see what you mean about the other articles though, there are a few. At first glance I prefer this article to them though as the others either address a different need or are too unwieldy. I think, as Jibco says below, this article provides a useful perspective/context (for me). I need to have a more detailed read of them all though. You never mentioned what specifically you regard as unencyclopedic about the article topic though, it would help if you could expand a bit on that. Ha! (talk) 22:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. At least in modern times, is there not the concept of the Royal List (do I have the term right) of those who are paid a stipend by the UK parliament? The lists for now look pretty well what I think that list is. This would be an objective source. --Bduke (talk) 09:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. I'm not sure what the significance is of taking a snapshot in 1880, 1977 or 1990.  The years 1901, 1910, 1936 and 1953, of course, coincide with the coronation of a new monarch, but why December?   Then, there's the labelling, such that the first name is listed as "The Queen of the United Kingdom" or "The King of the United Kingdom" or "The Prince of Wales".  OK, perhaps you have reasons not to say Victoria, Edward, George, Elizabeth, Charles, etc., but it's no less a breach of royal protocol to simply refer to "king of the kingdom" without mention of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (a lot of these were also Empress or Emperor of India).  It's not very informative, analogous to a list that informs us that the American leader in 1901, 1910, 1936, etc. was "The President of the United States" and that the foremost member of the cabinet during those same years was "The Secretary of State".  Finally, there are more efficient and informative ways of presenting the information.  Isn't the point to show the changes in the royalty, through births, deaths, ascension, etc.?  I agree with those who say it's arbitrary and unencyclopedic.  Mandsford (talk) 17:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename to Members of the British Royal Family. Content is verifiable and is not covered in List of monarchs in the British Isles or British Royal Family. Think outside the box 17:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment We already have British Royal Family, British prince, British princess, British monarchs' family tree, Genealogy of the British Royal Family and so on. Really, tell me why we need this. Charles 19:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks Charles, I didn't see those. I have to say delete then. Think outside the box 19:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep As creator. The article shows a clear perspective and/or contrast how the Royal Family has change through years or generations, and in the making of the article, as you can see, I follow the same line as in the article of British Royal Family in the part of List of members. Jibco (talk) 18:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I think people can grasp that even royals are born and die. We don't need an article to list it for them. Charles 19:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Im not refering that they born and die, thats not the point, I said just to make a perspective and/or contrast of how was in the past (or in a period), and how its now. Jibco (talk) 19:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.   -- the wub  "?!"  16:14, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - the modern section is duplicated in British Royal Family, but the composition at earlier dates is potentially useful, provided the dates reamin reasonably far apart. There may be overlap with some of the other articles, but not entirely.  Peterkingiron (talk) 01:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Who is the arbiter of what dates are good? What makes this topic encyclopedia-worthy? We are not the Almanach de Gotha for any given year. Charles 06:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak keep as per my comments above. It's encyclopaedic (or at least no one has shown how it's not), it's not arbitrary (the article, not the ordering) and I found it useful (not just interesting). I get the argument about the information being elsewhere though. It suppose it might be a helpful to show what policies/guidelines it breaks, if it really needs to be deleted. Ha! (talk) 02:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Can you show that it is an encyclopedic topic? The article depends entirely on the dates which can be changed at whim to include any and all dates. This article only satisfies an interest and nothing more, really. We are not the Almanach de Gotha for any given year. Charles 05:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep -  Based on the authors rewording of the opening paragraph of the article.  In addition, I have let my original comments stand,though striking out the reasons for delete, in that I believe they support my keep opinion. ShoesssS Talk 04:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment How? All is speaks about who is and isn't HRH or HM. It doesn't change the fact that any number of dates could be used and that you would never find that topic in an encyclopedia. We are not the Almanach de Gotha for any given year. Charles 05:55, 6 April 2008 (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.