Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plantagenet Alliance


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 20:26, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Plantagenet Alliance

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

A very small organization, the entire covereage for which was in sources dealing with the Exhumation and reburial of Richard III of England, to which they launched an unsuccessful court case to divert. They have no coverage, or as far as we know from the article, existence, separate from this historical episode and the group disappears from public view entirely after losing their court case over the burial. When a group is so inextricably linked to WP:ONEEVENT, and is adequately described there - we don't need a separate article reporting the individual genealogies of specific members, or that one of them is a night club owner, one a gardener and one runs a farm. This should be minimally merged to Exhumation and reburial of Richard III of England. Agricolae (talk) 14:43, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Organizations,  and England. Agricolae (talk) 14:43, 25 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep. Extensive and substantial coverage at the time - per sources included in the article. Don’t see the relevance that “the group disappears from public view” per WP:NOTTEMPORARY. WP:ONEEVENT doesn’t apply - which event? They ran a campaign in 2013 and 2014 that involved various activities including the court case Plantagenet Alliance v Secretary of state. Exhumation and reburial of Richard III of England has 2 paragraphs on the court case but nothing on the Alliance itself or the rest of its campaign, which would be WP:UNDUE for that article. There’s also more detail on the court case in this article which would be UNDUE in the Richard II article, which has general significance outside of the exhumation (eg the protective costs order, defining “legitimate expectations” etc As far as “the individual genealogies of specific members” is concerned - that’s an odd criticism. The whole point of the Alliance was that their claimed descent from the Plantagenets gave them a legal and moral rights. Btw, this was at DYK and no one raised the nominator’s points. DeCausa (talk) 15:59, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * And that would be adequately described in the collective, as is also done in the article, without stating precisely how each member named fulfills this - we don't do this for other lineage societies, describe the individual pedigrees of the members. We just provide the qualifying criteria in general. Agricolae (talk) 22:22, 1 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Merge; although I take 's point that the story was big and well covered, there's no point in trying to tell the story in two places. Everything this group did was a result of Exhumation and reburial of Richard III of England, and a contemporary part of that story. That story is incomplete without this group, this group is utterly meaningless without that event; and anyone wishing to understand either, must read about both. So let's put both in one place. The only reason for spinning them out into a second article would be if they became too bulky a part of the main article, but I don't believe that needs to be the case. Elemimele (talk) 16:14, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * At most merge -- This is a campaign group that sought to have Richard III's remains buried in Yorkshire (where he had at one stage lived) rather than in Leicester, where he had originally been buried. The group attempted but failed in its objective.  That topic is covered in two paragraphs of Exhumation and reburial of Richard III of England.  Leave was granted for a Judicial Review (a preliminary step, indicating that there was an arguable case), but the the Alliance lost its case and presumably became defunct.  It is thus NN.  I might have voted to delete, but would not oppose a merger that would slightly expand the two paragraphs.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:30, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Just a point of fact: it wasn’t just leave for judicial review that was heard, the judicial review itself took place. They did lose the case but the decision in Plantagenet Alliance v Secretary of State is authority for the parameters for the “duty to consult” in administrative law generally - nothing to do with the exhumation, with multiple citations in subsequent Public Law and Administrative Law texts. Unusually, and controversially, they were also granted a protective costs order ensuring that if they lost they would not pay the winner’s costs (the normal English law principle). That’s only granted if a point of law of “public interest” is at stake. (Here it was about the parameters of the duty to consult, not the exhumation that was of public interest). DeCausa (talk) 19:32, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected, but maintain my view that we do not need a separate article on a group whose existence was quite brief. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:46, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:34, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep: This article is very well-sourced, and the quantity and quality of coverage indicates notability. Exhumation and reburial of Richard III of England is already a long article. This article is necessary to contain detail which would make the main article unwieldy. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 15:44, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Except most of that detail that would bloat the main article is completely gratuitous. We don't carve off separate pages for every plaintiff and defendent in a noteworthy case just because detail on them has been given as part of the coverage of the case, let alone do so when the individual case is itself not independently notable and is only deemed to merit a short section in the story about the actual notable topic. Coverage of a court case may give a good bit of information about the judge, the plaintiffs, the jurors, the geographical context, but that is all just adding colour to the real story, and is not an indication of notability independent of that WP:ONEEVENT. Agricolae (talk) 22:17, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It’s gratuitous if the topic is the Exhumation. It’s not gratuitous if the topic is the Plantagenet Alliance. And given that the substantial coverage of who they are, their views etc is concerned, that topic passes GNG. Essentially you are attacking the principle of WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. As already mentioned (a) there’s the PA activity outside of the court case and (b) the court case itself has (legal) significance outside of the exhumation and the PA’s campaign (This isn’t just the point of law on the duty to consult mentioned above, cited in multiple law books, but the the political criticism of the “misuse” of the Human Rights Act, which fits into a broader political criticism by the government). Both (a) and (b) are far more than “colour” to the so-called “real story”. DeCausa (talk) 23:33, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually, there is a good bit that is gratuitous either way, like that a spokesman happens to be a Kansas City night club owner. And no, it is not "essentially attacking . . . WP:SUMMARYSTYLE" to argue that we shouldn't blow up a WP:MINORASPECT of a subject into a separate article bloated with excessively detail and trivia and then argue that has to have a separate article because it would bloat the main article, when appropraitely proportionate coverage would not. As to the rest of your argument, a) all of the PA activity relates to the Exhumation, which is the proposed target, so the fact that all of their exhumation-related activities do not relate to the case isn't relevant, and b) you personally considering the court case important because of how it represents broader aspects of British politics does not make the it notable by Wikipedia standards, which requires reliable sources making that observation, but even if it did, it wouldn't make the court case's plaintiff notable. Agricolae (talk) 00:56, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The only (arguably) frivolous detail is in 2 or 3 sentences in the "Name and composition" section. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 04:44, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It’s not me “personally” saying it’s legally notable. The case and the point of law it’s authority for is cited in multiple standard Public/Admin Law books (e.g search google books for "Plantagenet Alliance v Secretary of State”) two of which are also cited in the article. This is one example. The legal issue at stake, and the precedent set out by the High Court, is the parameters of the duty to consult, which is a broader issue than the exhumation. As far as the wider political significance of the case is concerned it was the Secretary of State for Justice, as reported in the media, that made the comment, not me. DeCausa (talk) 09:45, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Again the latter would make the case notable, not the plaintiff. Agricolae (talk) 17:06, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * The case is within scope of the article - you can’t distinguish notability in that way. (And don’t forget there was extensive coverage on the PA as an organisation/grouping separate from the case). We don’t have an article on the case to merge it into it. The only place to “merge” it into is the Exhumation article, which would be out of scope for that point. This is the nub of the issue. It isn’t just about that specific legal issue. If there were Plantagenet Alliance v Secretary of State then I wouldn’t object to merging it into that and the Exhumation article. As it is, there’s too much that would be either WP:UNDUE or out of scope for the Exhumation article and that’s not trivia (as you would like to portray it) that would be lost without this article. (You effectively recognize that when you say you want to merge it mnimimally) DeCausa (talk) 18:32, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * For the sake of finding middle ground, would you be open to retasking the article - switching its primary focus and moving it to a namespace about the case? Agricolae (talk) 22:11, 8 May 2022 (UTC)


 * keep Per DeCausa and Ficaia. Notability seems satisfied, but they do not seem to warrant coverage in depth on the main article on the topic. Boynamedsue (talk) 08:12, 8 May 2022 (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.