Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Stuart, Duke of Rothesay

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. -- AllyUnion (talk) 12:48, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Alexander Stuart, Duke of Rothesay

This is sub-stub that was nominated for deletion by user:PatGallacher, but seemingly all they did was place the VfD notice on the page and an incorrectly formated link on the main VfD page. Although I don't think it should be deleted, I'm creating this page and correcting the link format to give it a fair hearing. Thryduulf 12:53, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. I've put a bit more in there to give it a hope of life. The article was linked to from the Duke of Rothesay article (thereby eliminating a red link). Noisy | Talk 13:29, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, and thank you Noisy. Babies are certainly encyclopedic if they are or were heir apparent to a throne. Samaritan 13:48, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to James I of Scotland. While this is absolutely encyclopedic, there's no potential for expansion, and it'll work better in context. —Korath (Talk) 15:31, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep' If it can't be expanded then I agree with Korath, merge it. Jaberwocky6669 16:08, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm tepted to say keep based on the fact that the child was heir apparent to the throne of Scotland. -- Francs2000 | Talk [[]] 16:43, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, historical figure, Wikipedia is not paper. — Ливай | ☺ 17:47, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

from the talk page:

I call for deletion of this page on the grounds that it has no potential to expand into something encyclopedic. I suspect there is next to nothing known about this unfortunate kid except that he died in infancy. In those days even a lot of royal children died in infancy, do they all get an entry? It might be argued that this one was a bit exceptional since he was heir to the throne. However James IV had about 4 children who died in infancy, who were all heir during their lives of a few hours to a few months, James V had 2 sons who died in infancy, 1 of who was heir. Also, it misspells his name, it should be Stewart. PatGallacher 11:58, 2005 Feb 5 (UTC)
I still fail to see why this information should be removed from the Wikipedia. Even if the child himself does not merit an article, any Wikipedian can perform a merge and redirect. Any Wikipedian can also move pages to correct spelling errors in titles. — Ливай | ☺ 20:02, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, this may forever remain as a stub, but it's a helpful one. Wyss 21:34, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The older twin of a 15th Century king of Scotland who died in infancy merits a mention in the article on that king, perhaps, but this article doesn't seem very expandable, and the subject well below the threshold of notability for biographies. Did this unfortunate infant become celebrated in any way at all? Seems like no more than a footnote in a (thick) history of Scotland rather than an article in a general encyclopedia. --BM 22:04, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep; obscure, perhaps, but I'd argue it's encylopedic. Shimgray 22:30, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep this, stub though it may remain. Dbiv 22:30, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Documented historical figure. --Centauri 23:18, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Centauri, there are (literally) hundreds of millions of "documented" historical figures. All my great-grandparents were "documented", in that their birth, marriage, and death certificates are in the public records. That doesn't make them notable in the least. --BM 00:01, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Please restrain your sarcasm. I strongly doubt your grandfather was the member of a royal family.--Centauri 00:06, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I'm not being sarcastic. And which is your argument, that he's a "documented". Or that he was a member of royal family? "Documented" would mean that any person who is known from historical records and/or who receives the slightest mention in any historical book or article should have a Wikipedia article about them, even if all that is known about him or her can be captured in one sentence. For example, we should have an article on William Shakespeare's wife, since she is a historical figure who is documented and at least gets mentioned in any biography of Shakespeare. "Member of a royal family" means that there should be an article about every child (grandchild? great-grandchild?) of every monarch in the history of the world, even if he or she did absolutely nothing, and even (as in this case) if he or she died in infancy. If either those seem too extreme, feel free to come up with more reasons to keep this article. Maybe eventually you'll find one that makes some kind of sense. --BM 00:30, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
My position has been stated above in a clear and concise manner. If you wish to discuss your opinions concerning the general notability of historical figures please post them to my talk page. Oh, and denying that you are being sarcastic and then ending your post with a sarcastic comment is a bit self-defeating. --Centauri 01:47, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Since you accused me of sarcasm when I hadn't been sarcastic, I decided I might as well let her rip, especially since you present such a juicy target. --BM 02:16, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps it might be a better idea to concentrate on making a contribution to Wikipedia that doesn't involve "targeting" other editors - juicy or otherwise. Your comments here are sailing dangerously close to constituting an endorsement of personal attacks.--Centauri 02:39, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Heirs to thrones of nations are inherently notable even if they die before they become kings or queens. Article is a good stub. Capitalistroadster 00:44, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge as per Korath. Uncle G 01:43, 2005 Feb 6 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable individual, article needs expansion. Megan1967 03:02, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. -- Necrothesp 03:48, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Twin brother of a King of Scotland? Even if he died in infancy that is notable enough. One quibble, the Stewarts didn't start spelling their name in the French fashion (Stuart) until over a hundred years later. Keep. Fire Star 16:22, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
You are correct, according to House of Stuart. This needs to redirect to the correct spelling, which should be done once the keep decision has been confirmed. Noisy | Talk 18:00, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, he was heir apparent to the Scottish trone. Thue | talk 14:29, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and be careful with those scissors. GRider\talk 17:50, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. This can be covered in his father's article. Gamaliel 21:55, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I agree with Capitalistroadster. David.rand 05:03, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • keep. ComCat 15:27, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.