Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Royal Family Orders of Sweden


 * 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   merge to Royal Family Order. (non-admin closure) Armbrust The Homunculus 10:18, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Royal Family Orders of Sweden

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unofficial order, without reliable independent sources which give it significant attention. Article claims "The order is more of a personal memento rather than a state decoration. The only way to know who has been given it is to see the recipient wear it." So, basically, this is a piece of decorative jewellery which has significance inside the royal family, but not outside of it.

The sources in the article are the website of the royal family, not an independent source. Article seems to be filled with WP:OR like "Queen Silvia's decoration may be regarded as the most prestigious,as her portrait frame has more detailing on it.", or "it might be assumed that..." Fram (talk) 06:48, 13 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: While it is true, that it is almost never officially announced that it has been given, The Royal Family only wears it to what they think is an important event. Notice that in plain, everyday photos, they don't wear it. The only Royal who has been photographed wearing hers more often than that is Queen Sonja of Norway. And it DOES have history. See the history section. --Hipposcrashed (talk) 13:37, 13 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Also the only reason people think it is unimportant, is because it is unannounced but fashion editors often take note of whether or not they are wearing it. It is also worn on the same blue ribbon as the Royal Order of the Seraphim. It is very often worn with other orders.--Hipposcrashed (talk) 13:33, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That UK article is also created by you, and also completely lacks reliable independent sources. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is always a bad argument to keep articles, but especially so in this case... Fram (talk) 14:06, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 13 June 2014 (UTC)


 *  Delete Merge: No sources available anywhere (already cited or otherwise), besides pictures of them wearing it at events, so fails notability.&mdash;Lucas Thoms, formerly My Ubuntu (talk) 15:23, 13 June 2014 (UTC) Merge with Royal Family Order. Don't know how I missed that idea earlier, but it makes a lot more sense &mdash;Lucas Thoms, formerly My Ubuntu (talk) 21:35, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge: Merge with Royal Family Order in the Sweden section. --Hipposcrashed (talk) 19:56, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * One source is almost never enough to pass notability. &mdash;Lucas Thoms, formerly My Ubuntu (talk) 05:24, 14 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete as no evidence of notability. – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  22:43, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment What do you mean by not notable? Can you specify? I think the history aspect of it is notable. That is exactly why the British ones are notable, because of their history: Royal Family Order of King George IV.--Hipposcrashed (talk) 04:18, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I think I can specify on Davey's behalf: Compare the sources on the King George article to the sources on this one. George's article has two sources that specifically discuss the subject. This article has one source that might mention the subject (I'm not entirely sure, although it's probably shown in the pictures), another source just like it (listed 3 times), a dead link to some museum, and a pdf that, if |en&tbb=1&ie=null Google translate serves me well, has nothing to do with the subject. Also, as has been said before, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an acceptable argument.&mdash;Lucas Thoms, formerly My Ubuntu (talk) 05:46, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Lucas Thoms is bang on (Cheers Lucas) - We need sources that go more in depth not just "barely mentions" and images". – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  01:46, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * MERGE to Royal Family Order - I have no idea how I missed that but Merging makes much more sense. – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  21:40, 19 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment I get the feeling the there is a lot of bias here. I know why people would decide that this topic is not notable enough to deserve an article- that seems to be the case here. But because of the bias, no one has even mentioned a merge with an existing article.--Hipposcrashed (talk) 13:09, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge per Hipposcrashed. The Swedish royal orders might not be as well known as the British (so fail WP:GNG), but they are a real thing, merging might be a good solution. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:41, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: Have you seen the Swedish version of this article? I'm not fluent in Swedish but it looks much worse than this article. There is less information and also there are unreasonable claims.--Hipposcrashed (talk) 02:50, 16 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Just because it is not notable enough for it's own article does not mean it's information can't be kept as part of another article. Of course I want to keep the article, but I would rather have it merged than deleted-it's good information. In my opinion, it's not the best article but it's not exactly a bad article either-I've seen worse.--Hipposcrashed (talk) 13:09, 14 June 2014 (UTC)


 * What bias do we have? &mdash;Lucas Thoms, formerly My Ubuntu (talk) 14:54, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * All you see is that it is not notable and you want to delete it because of that. But none of you have suggested alternatives to deleting it. Not being notable means that it can't have it's own article, but it doesn't mean it can't be kept with another existing article.--Hipposcrashed (talk) 15:16, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Even if it was deleted, the content could be integrated into whatever relevant article you want (and by the way, if we're asked to make a choice, and we make it, it's not "bias," it's just making a choice).&mdash;Lucas Thoms, formerly My Ubuntu (talk) 15:19, 14 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Merge to Royal Family Order. Not sufficiently notable for standalone article.--Staberinde (talk) 17:55, 19 June 2014 (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.