Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/King William V

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 of the debate was delete. DS 23:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] King William V

Speculation, possibly original research. Possibly merge this info into the current article about prince William, but until he's king and actually using this name I don't think it's worth an article Hirudo 00:56, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:Not a crystal ball. As quoted from the article, "King William V is the name that His Royal Highness Prince William of Wales will supposedly take."--TBC^{??? ??? ???} 01:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per TBC. Chart123 01:09, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - all the info in this article is either completely speculative, or it's duplicated elsewhere.- Richardcavell 02:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, original research and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Terence Ong 02:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 03:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per TBC and Terrence. SorryGuy 03:47, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: though it might be slightly misleading, it could be redirected to the prince's current article, where the title is mentioned. -- Kjkolb 07:02, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Merge or Delete. Preferably merge, though I can imagine most of this is already in Prince Williams article. The Minister of War ^(Peace) 10:19, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:Not a crystal ball. San Saba 10:22, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I can't see why the prod was contested. Eusebeus 13:56, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete It isn't needed at all. --Thorpe | talk 14:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - No point in a merge, this is speculation. --Knucmo2 14:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, wrongly deprodded by chronic de-prodder Kappa. Kuzaar 15:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • There's no such thing as "wrongly deprodded" - just means that someone wants a discussion on a point that is not a candidate for speedy deletion (as is any editor's right). BD2412 T 20:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, this I understand, but with the obvious consensus this discussion is producing, there is no reason that this prod could not have resolved quietly without the extra work of the editors responsible for listing it for AFD and subsequent voting. Kuzaar 19:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to, then redirect. --Domthedude001
• Delete, We'll cross that bridge when we get there. Trapper 04:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as crystal-balling. And, is there any reason for the article having been blanked? Robin Johnson 12:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The name used by a prince is not neccesarily the one they would use as king. For example, Charles could use William, or William could use another name, or William could die before his Dad or his Grannie, etc: ie too crystal ball-ish for inclusion. youngamerican (talk) 19:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: either jumping the gun or time-traveling. In this time frame, such a person with that title does not exist as of yet

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.