Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Descendants of Gustav II Adolf

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 Speedy close per nominator's request, in order for him to re-list them separately. Grutness...wha? 01:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Descendants of Gustav II Adolf

ADMIN REQUEST: I would like to withdraw this Afd and renominate individually. There are civility and process issues stemming from the bundling of these articles. Note also the issues with separating without closing as noted here: [1] Charles 15:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Violates WP:NOT (Wikipedia is not a genealogical repository. Also unprecedented, we are much more likely to include a person's ancestry rather than their descendants on Wikipedia. Also violates WP:OR and is not properly sourced ("various" being a word used). The article is not an encyclopedic topic and many of the descendants are not notable. If the fact that the King has descendants is notable then it belongs in his article. Charles 12:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because the ancestry of the Swedish kings already exists at Family tree of Swedish monarchs. It is not customary or particularly encyclopedic to dedicate a page to every line of descent from different ruling houses to the current ruling house. Charles 12:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As nominator, send information to user space if necessary. Charles 12:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. STORMTRACKER 94 12:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: list of descendants of Kennedy family Suedois (talk) 12:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Laniers, Livingstons, Longworths Suedois (talk) 13:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Kennedy family is almost entirely notable. Indeed, everyone on that list (almost, except for two or so grandchildren) has a notable parent with an article, as opposed to generations of non-notable descendants of royalty. The Kennedy family tree has an arguable case for being merged, but given its size and specific nature, it is really a branch or continuation of a single article. Charles 12:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the two articles proposed to be deleted by this request are too much of separate matters to be handled as one bundle. I say the nominations are improper when made in this way. Suedois (talk) 12:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Above, User:Charles alleges to be "nominating here "Pedigree of Swedish monarchs"...because it is "RELATED" with the other delproposed page. What is the "relation" which would entitle to bundle these into one proposal? Suedois (talk) 14:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion of Descendants of Gustav II Adolf. Descent from the said king is historically notable. In genealogies, it is nature of the things that not all there are personally notable, the prominence of a genealogy comes from presenting genealogical relations between notable persons. And, Wikipedia has other articles extant, being listing of descendants of some person. It is in no way unprecedented in Wikipedia. It is not OR, being basically based on information published in Gustav Elgenstierna, Ättartavlor I-IX. Suedois (talk) 12:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please show where non-notable descendants of an individual warrant an article on Wikipedia. Charles 12:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Several descendants of Gustav II Adolf are notable. It is just that Sweden is under-represented in the field of biographies in this Wikipedia. Deletion of a genealogy from where links to such prominent persons easily start, has moreover the unsavory effect of discouraging to make biographies of those persons. Suedois (talk) 13:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, which ones? These people are "misrepresented" because they are not notable. That is why their ancestry is not encyclopedic. Charles 13:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The edit history of this very page reveals, who has been the user who has done his utmost to misrepresent things. Suedois (talk) 14:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion of the pedigree. Everyone sees that the "article" Family tree of Swedish monarchs, being basically just a repository and display of a png file, is NOT updatable, not editable, not getting corrected, etc. When genealogies are presented here, as article, they should be easily editable. Thus, the argument actually is contrariwise: if something is deleted, it is that one which is just practically home of only some pngs. And, the topic is certainly encyclopedic, it is shown already by the delete-proposers underlying admission that one family tree will not get deleted. Suedois (talk) 13:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the ancestry article for deletion is not encyclopedic. The other article can be changed from PNG to utilize Wikipedia's family tree code. Charles 13:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suedois (talk • contribs) <--- Now out of context because of Suedois' reversions and changes. Charles 14:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Must say it is a sadly mistaken view. We are here to determine encyclopedicity of a topic, not which of two articles is currently less or more encyclopedic. It should be obvious that they should be merged, and the entire deletion proposal is improper. Suedois (talk) 13:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify: They should not be merged, the family tree of the kings should be converted to text from PNG; the descent ("pedigree") from the individual houses should be deleted. That is what was meant. The article holding the PNG image is not up for deletion. Charles 13:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Descents of British monarchs from various dynasties is an example of another article of this kind. It is notable and encyclopedic information presented. To know how some monarchs of a country were related with another line of monarchs of the same country. It sems to be so that if an article has something to do with British royals, it will not get deleted, and deletionists choose similar articles related to OTHER countries as their targets. A wikipedia policy prohibits/discourages Anglo-centrism in this Wikipedia, which is basically intended for bthe entire world. Suedois (talk) 14:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please observe the Wikipedia etiquette of properly formatting and indenting talk page posts. Elizabeth's page is basically a list of descents from one monarch to another, as opposed to long lists of intervening ancestors of non-Swedish houses, etc. Additional descents are from predecessor kingdoms. The "pedigree" is actually very much unlike the Elizabeth page while the Family tree of Swedish monarchs is more like it (and is not up for deletion). The Family tree of Swedish monarchs should be changed to the format used in Elizabeth's page. Charles 14:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Elizabeth page has information which is analogous with the information on the pedigree page, one is British, one Swedish. Both have intervening generations occasionally in neighboring countries. See carefuly the Flanders route connecting Elizabeth's Norman ancestry with Alfred. Etc etc. It looks to me that User:Charles is using this AfD as vehicle to try to have such format deleted whgich he wants deleted, while he admits that the topic is encyclopedic. Readers may drwa their conclusions about the possible bad-faithness of the proposal. Suedois (talk) 14:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Charles appears to be claiming above that Merovingians and Carolingians were British dynasties - or at least that lineage is "non-British" ancestors or intervening generations. And, some rulers of Kievan Rus and Novgorod apparently are acceptable to British monarchs family tree, while they should be kept from the tree of monarchs of neighboring Sweden, or at least it looks Charles is desiring such. But seemingly British monarchs enjoy some privileges, compared to monarchs of other countries. Suedois (talk) 14:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "The family tree of Swedish monarchs should be changed to the format used in Elizabeth's page", writes Charles above. I see that this delete proposal springs from the proposer's format preferences. Apparently this is the correct place to ponder the editorial question what format would be better in presenting lineages of consecutive dynasties ruling one country. And apparently that editorial question, preference of format, has clear significance in what gets deleted. As opposed to combining information of both articles and merging them. Suedois (talk) 14:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - The two articles, Descendants of Gustav II Adolf and Family tree of Swedish monarchs, are dissimilar enough that there should be separate Afd discussions about each one. While they are both genealogical, there are major formatting differences between them. Some of the reasons for deleting apply only to one and not to the other. It is inappropriate to bundle them together. If there were separate Afd discussions, I might vote differently (based on the discussion). Noel S McFerran (talk) 14:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.