Content deleted Content added
→List of British monarchy records: WP:NOR is rather explicit |
|||
Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
*'''Merge''' Most of this article centers around the English monarchs, not British or Scottish, thus we should modify the summary-section a bit and merge it with [[List of English Monarchs]]. [[User:Go-Chlodio|Go-Chlodio]] ([[User talk:Go-Chlodio|talk]]) 09:10, 14 April 2019 (UTC) |
*'''Merge''' Most of this article centers around the English monarchs, not British or Scottish, thus we should modify the summary-section a bit and merge it with [[List of English Monarchs]]. [[User:Go-Chlodio|Go-Chlodio]] ([[User talk:Go-Chlodio|talk]]) 09:10, 14 April 2019 (UTC) |
||
** The problem here is not only that the topic is not notable, it is that the content is both unreferenced trivia and original research-synthesis. We absolutely don't want to just move it to another page. [[User:Agricolae|Agricolae]] ([[User talk:Agricolae|talk]]) 17:07, 14 April 2019 (UTC) |
** The problem here is not only that the topic is not notable, it is that the content is both unreferenced trivia and original research-synthesis. We absolutely don't want to just move it to another page. [[User:Agricolae|Agricolae]] ([[User talk:Agricolae|talk]]) 17:07, 14 April 2019 (UTC) |
||
***Original research should be highly praised and sought after as nothing else gives any article independent value.The powers that want to make Wikipedia a pile of vomit that does nothing but regurgitate what can (and therefore should) be found elsewhere get far too much respect! [[User:LE|LE]] ([[User talk:LE|talk]]) 23:31, 14 April 2019 (UTC) |
***Original research should be highly praised and sought after as nothing else gives any article independent value. The powers that want to make Wikipedia a pile of vomit that does nothing but regurgitate what can (and therefore should) be found elsewhere get far too much respect! [[User:LE|LE]] ([[User talk:LE|talk]]) 23:31, 14 April 2019 (UTC) |
||
****Umm, you do realize that [[WP:No Original Research]] is one of the core content policies of Wikipedia, one of its founding principles? To quote, "'''Wikipedia articles must not contain original research'''". Not much ambiguity there. [[User:Agricolae|Agricolae]] ([[User talk:Agricolae|talk]]) 23:52, 14 April 2019 (UTC) |
****Umm, you do realize that [[WP:No Original Research]] is one of the core content policies of Wikipedia, one of its founding principles? To quote, "'''Wikipedia articles must not contain original research'''". Not much ambiguity there. [[User:Agricolae|Agricolae]] ([[User talk:Agricolae|talk]]) 23:52, 14 April 2019 (UTC) |
||
*****And I trust I left no ambiguity as to my contempt for that attitude. Textbook example of "a custom more honoured in the breach than the observance." Praise complaint, not compliance; eschew deference, demand defiance. But on a self-published site that regards other self-published sites being self-published sites as something wrong with them, I realize the herd mentality is strong. [[User:LE|LE]] ([[User talk:LE|talk]]) 14:45, 15 April 2019 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Keep''' -- The subject is of sufficient interest to be worth having. A few of the topics are a bit silly, like length of marriage zero because never married. so '''prune'''. [[User:Peterkingiron|Peterkingiron]] ([[User talk:Peterkingiron|talk]]) 17:47, 14 April 2019 (UTC) |
*'''Keep''' -- The subject is of sufficient interest to be worth having. A few of the topics are a bit silly, like length of marriage zero because never married. so '''prune'''. [[User:Peterkingiron|Peterkingiron]] ([[User talk:Peterkingiron|talk]]) 17:47, 14 April 2019 (UTC) |
||
**Sufficient interest for whom? Where are the sources confirming the notability of the topic? [[User:Surtsicna|Surtsicna]] ([[User talk:Surtsicna|talk]]) 18:17, 14 April 2019 (UTC) |
**Sufficient interest for whom? Where are the sources confirming the notability of the topic? [[User:Surtsicna|Surtsicna]] ([[User talk:Surtsicna|talk]]) 18:17, 14 April 2019 (UTC) |
Revision as of 14:46, 15 April 2019
List of British monarchy records
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- List of British monarchy records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article is nothing but a collection of trivia. The utter lack of reliable sources strongly suggests that compiling information about "British monarchy records", such as "the greatest age difference of an outgoing British monarch and successor" or "the queen regnant with the most pregnancies", is of no interest to scholars. Surtsicna (talk) 11:37, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:05, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:05, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. PATH SLOPU 13:31, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- Strong Keep. Collections of widely available facts are of legitimate interest to many without the pretension of designating any particular "reliable source" for them and statistical comparisons are self-evident. LE (talk) 16:23, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- Don't be ridiculous. The "greatest age difference of an outgoing British monarch and successor" is not a widely available fact. That the oldest monarch at the time of his marriage was Edward I is not a widely available fact. Things like these definitely require a reliable source. The best this article can hope for is to synthesize conclusions from different sources, which is forbidden but presumably better than having no sources at all. But Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. We have a policy that specifically says that Wikipedia articles should not be lists of unexplained statistics. Surtsicna (talk) 17:36, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- When various English monarchs were born and when they married are widely available facts and mathematics is a widely available skill. Establishing which interval was longest is not something that needs great scholarship to establish. This article has existed for about a dozen years so why pick on it now? LE (talk) 19:29, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- And if this trivia is indeed of interest to many, it will not be difficult to find sources establishing the notability of the topic. Surtsicna (talk) 17:37, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- Don't be ridiculous. The "greatest age difference of an outgoing British monarch and successor" is not a widely available fact. That the oldest monarch at the time of his marriage was Edward I is not a widely available fact. Things like these definitely require a reliable source. The best this article can hope for is to synthesize conclusions from different sources, which is forbidden but presumably better than having no sources at all. But Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. We have a policy that specifically says that Wikipedia articles should not be lists of unexplained statistics. Surtsicna (talk) 17:36, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- Delete Most of this is trivia, and much of it is synthesis - we aren't supposed to be reaching conclusions (however self-evident we think they are) that are not found in reliable sources. The need for a source both avoids synthesis and demonstrates that someone outside of the Wikiverse thinks it is noteworthy. Agricolae (talk) 17:58, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- Another such list with similar trivia and synthesis problems: Records of heads of state. Agricolae (talk) 20:41, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NOTTRIVIA and ROYAL FANCRUFT. Ajf773 (talk) 18:58, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- Delete/merge Crazy amount of trivia and fancruft per Ajf. List of monarchs in Britain by length of reign and List of British monarchs by longevity could absorb some of what's not just minutiae. I could see List of British monarchs taking in a condensed table though if there's some sourcing. Reywas92Talk 19:02, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- Weak merge per Reywas92. Mosaicberry (talk) 00:28, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Textbook example if list-cruft. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:47, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
- Merge Most of this article centers around the English monarchs, not British or Scottish, thus we should modify the summary-section a bit and merge it with List of English Monarchs. Go-Chlodio (talk) 09:10, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
- The problem here is not only that the topic is not notable, it is that the content is both unreferenced trivia and original research-synthesis. We absolutely don't want to just move it to another page. Agricolae (talk) 17:07, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
- Original research should be highly praised and sought after as nothing else gives any article independent value. The powers that want to make Wikipedia a pile of vomit that does nothing but regurgitate what can (and therefore should) be found elsewhere get far too much respect! LE (talk) 23:31, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
- Umm, you do realize that WP:No Original Research is one of the core content policies of Wikipedia, one of its founding principles? To quote, "Wikipedia articles must not contain original research". Not much ambiguity there. Agricolae (talk) 23:52, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
- And I trust I left no ambiguity as to my contempt for that attitude. Textbook example of "a custom more honoured in the breach than the observance." Praise complaint, not compliance; eschew deference, demand defiance. But on a self-published site that regards other self-published sites being self-published sites as something wrong with them, I realize the herd mentality is strong. LE (talk) 14:45, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
- Umm, you do realize that WP:No Original Research is one of the core content policies of Wikipedia, one of its founding principles? To quote, "Wikipedia articles must not contain original research". Not much ambiguity there. Agricolae (talk) 23:52, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
- Original research should be highly praised and sought after as nothing else gives any article independent value. The powers that want to make Wikipedia a pile of vomit that does nothing but regurgitate what can (and therefore should) be found elsewhere get far too much respect! LE (talk) 23:31, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
- The problem here is not only that the topic is not notable, it is that the content is both unreferenced trivia and original research-synthesis. We absolutely don't want to just move it to another page. Agricolae (talk) 17:07, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
- Keep -- The subject is of sufficient interest to be worth having. A few of the topics are a bit silly, like length of marriage zero because never married. so prune. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:47, 14 April 2019 (UTC)