Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Royal descendants of John William Friso


 * 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. SpinningSpark 19:00, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Royal descendants of John William Friso

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Despite the addition of sources since it was originally deleted by Articles for deletion/Royal descendants of John William Friso, Prince of Orange, this article still seems like original research to me and violates of Wikipedia policies against creating genealogical database. The sources are also just other genealogical sites sourcing the ancestry and relation of the immediate people in each sections and are unreliable sources for most serious articles. It just seems a hodgepodge of unreliable sources trying to validate an original research not found in actual reliable sources. The Emperor&#39;s New Spy (talk) 03:01, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete – I guess there would be one person who would find this useful, but, seeing as how this was recreated with a slightly different title (probably not to alarm CSD people) and is pretty much the same (albeit, as you said, more sourcing), I would lean toward deletion. United States Man (talk) 03:40, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 10 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - Looks like a comprehensive list and that some effort and sources have been added. I would address the possible original research issues instead of deleting it altogether. --Codrin.B (talk) 15:18, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 08:19, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

 
 * Comment Although I am quite biased (I created the article), I just want to point out that the majority of the sources come from The College of New Jersey, an accredited institution of higher education in respect to WP:V. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:11, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | express _ 20:48, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Even if the claims made in the article are accurate, it is not clear why this is a notable topic deserving of coverage in the encyclopedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:19, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * This article is notable as it is a major topic for royal genealogists. For instance, we have Descendants of Charles I of England, and more specifically related to this article, Royal descendants of Queen Victoria and King Christian IX. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 11:47, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - As a List of royal descendants of John William Friso, or, if you're of the view that the most common forefather of the hereditary thrones of Europe isn't encyclopedic in that context, then merge to John William Friso, Prince of Orange. Of course, that would clog up the article. Keeping this as a spin-off article makes sense to me for that reason. Carrite (talk) 16:56, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep (listify). I ascribe to the JPL view that this is a topic that doesn't really require an article. But Carrite's suggestion of a list seems sensible. I imagine the other articles provided as examples by Presidentman could probably be (quite effectively) listified also. The article is effectively a list anyway, just without nice table formatting. I wonder if that would (at least in part) satisfy some of those opining for deletion?  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 00:02, 9 July 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.