Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canadian Royal Family (second nom)

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 redirect to Monarchy in Canada. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Canadian Royal Family

Canadian Royal Family (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Ridiculous article, since the Canadian Royal Family is the same as the British Royal Family, and the information herein can be found in both the Monarchy in Canada and British Royal Family articles. A previous AFD a year ago resulted in the article being redirected to Monarchy in Canada but the article's creator recently recreated the article, hoping enough time had passed that nobody would notice, and is currently making a dogged stand for the retention of this silly article. Hence a renomination. I reckon the article should go back to a redirect, as per the first AFD--Aim Here 02:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect. Although there are slight differences in who is officially considered a member of the Royal Family in both countries (under the Canadian Constitution, only the sovereign and the current heir are mentioned), this isn't enough to make a complete article about. A redirect would make much more sense. --Charlene 03:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: 1) Aim - it's extremely poor form on your part to launch into assumptive accusations. Beyond that, please outline specifically what information in Canadian Royal Family is duplicated at either Monarchy in Canada or British Royal Family. Also, explain why the shift of contents from Monarchy in Canada to Canadian Royal Family should be reversed when it is WP policy to break long articles down into smaller subsidiery ones. 2) Charlene - what do you mean by "only the sovereign and the current heir are mentioned"? It's obvious that the article contains much more information than that. --G2bambino 04:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• It is also poor form to remove an Afd tag while this discussion is still going on.[1] --Tikiwont 07:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• No, that was a mistake - "Speedy close," "no deletion request," etc. appeared to me to mean the discussion was, well, closed. --G2bambino 14:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Above are recomendations only and once an administrator closes the discussion,it will look like the previous AFD. --Tikiwont 14:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• If there's any information in your article that isn't in Monarchy in Canada or British Royal Family, then it should be merged into the appropriate article. There's nothing in your current article that doesn't belong to one or other of them. --Aim Here 08:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• Again, when the info was moved out of Monarchy in Canada to make a long article shorter, why should it be sent back, against WP guidelines? Further, why would information about the royal family within Canadian jurisdiction be put in an article about the British Royal Family? Though they're made up of the same people, the two are not one and the same thing. --G2bambino 14:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
• Perhaps for the same reason we don't have articles on Rupert Murdoch (Australian Newspaper Magnate) and Rupert Murdoch (British Newspaper Magnate) and Rupert Murdoch (American Newspaper Magnate) and Rupert Murdoch (American Television company executive) and Rupert Murdoch (British Television Company Executive) etc. That's the same person with slightly different facets of the same job too, but with the Rupert Murdoch and Fox News and News International etc, around, it would be a ridiculous overduplication of articles. --14:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• I understand your example, but what's being proposed by some - ie. moving information on the Canadian royal family to the British royal family article would be akin to putting all the info pertaining to Rupert Murdoch into one article titled "Rupert Murdoch (American television company executive)" - the title of such an article would be a misleading and inappropriate misnomer. If people are willing to tamper with the title of the article in question here, and/or the title of British Royal Family, then I'm all ears. But, the Royal Family as it exists for Canada is not some subordinate entity to an overreaching British Royal Family. --G2bambino 15:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• Not true Aim Here, this article is justified, it is not a POV pushing article, it is a encyclopaedic article on Canada's Head of State's family etc. Brian | (Talk) 10:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• I've not mentioned POV at all - you've brought it up, twice now. Is there a POV issue here I'm unaware of? I notice both you and User:G2bambino are fervent royalists. And is it really about the *family*? Then a redirect to British Royal Family is warranted and anything particular to Canada can be merged into a few paragraphs there. --Aim Here 14:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• Just a note on my part: I'm a monarchist, not a royalist; i.e. I study and support the notion of constitutional monarchy, as opposed to having a fervent and emotional passion for all things royal, and thus have a fair amount of knowledge on the topic. Accuracy is all that's paramount for me. --G2bambino 15:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy close wrong forum, no deletion request. A second AfD is not necessary to enforce the consensus of the initial AfD. If you're having an edit war, try RFC or other mediation processes. cab 04:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I don't see how this meets any criteria for deletion. the_undertow ^talk 05:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Monarchy in Canada per previous AfD and protect the redirect. --Metropolitan90 07:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect again. What's the point of having AfD if we have to keep considering the same article ? Charlie 08:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• One might wonder but I've just been debating keeping an article against its FOURTH deletion attempt. If it is acceptable to keep trying to delete information, it should surely be equally acceptable to keep trying to include it! --Interesdom 15:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, those should be equally acceptable, in that once an AfD decision is made, it should be stuck to unless 1) Something was flawed with the original AfD process, 2) Something significant about the article, or the subject, has changed in a way that will affect consensus, or 3)The tide of opinion on Wikipedia has shifted dramatically, such that consensus may be different. If one of those things has happened here, then I think arguing to keep is perfectly sensible. Charlie 03:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy close this is the wrong forum for this debate, however fyi I do lean for the strong keep side Brian | (Talk) 10:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect and speedy close - I can't access the original article so can't say whether this warrants a G4, but this seems a pointless content fork; the differences can be summed up in a single short paragraph on the main British Royal Family page and/or Commonwealth Realm. Besides, keeping this would set a ludicrous precedent for the rest of the Commonwealth, with Tuvaluan Royal Family, Royal Family of St Vincent & the Grenadines, Papuan Royal Family, New Zealand Royal Family et al — iridescenti (talk to me!) 12:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• They would look like Jamaican Royal Family...--Tikiwont 13:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• Well, if there's pertinent information to fill them, then why not. As someone pointed out at Talk:Canadian Royal Family: "I suppose if we have an article for every Star Trek episode, we can live with this." --G2bambino 14:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• Quite agree with that comment. Trivial television shows seem to be acceptable but any non-US constitutional issues are considered irrelevant. --Interesdom 15:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect to Monarchy in Canada. While the term "Queen of Canada" is used on rare occasions to refer to QEII, the term Canadian Royal Family is never used. This topic is better covered by a general article on monarchy as it pertains to Canada. 23skidoo 15:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Monarchy in Canada or British Royal Family. We had a similar discussion about Queen of Canada and Elizabeth II of Canada some time ago. CJCurrie 16:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The article Monarchy in Canada is about the role and laws, this article is about people. And British Royal Family is also not exactly the same as the Canadian Royal Family, although it happens now that one family rules both countries. Maybe that in the future, one of the two nations selects another family as their Royal Family. And even now, understanding of who is a member of the family, which titles he bears etc. differs between the two nations.--Ioannes Pragensis 19:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  • If and when that happens, a new article can be created at that time. Bearcat 19:24, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Monarchy in Canada pointless to have two articles about the same people. --Barryob Vigeur de dessus 22:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment the article states that they are not exactly the same people (the Canadian definition of the Royal Family differs from the British one: "for instance Angus Ogilvy was included in the Department of Canadian Heritage Royal Family list, whereas he was not considered a member of the British Royal Family").--Ioannes Pragensis 11:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• Indeed. And, beyond that, the people are the same but the institutions are separate. --G2bambino 14:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Correct and that is why we have a Monarchy in Canada page --Barryob Vigeur de dessus 21:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• Monarchy in Canada's too long; that's why the current contents of Canadian Royal Family were moved out of it to a separate article. --G2bambino 21:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep: There is a difference between the concept of Monarchy and the living members of the Royal family. There is a constitutional difference between the Royal family as accepted in Canada to that accepted in the United Kingdom. While some information IS duplicated, this can hopefully be minimalised and the crorect representation of information under the current heading should remain. --Interesdom 15:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions. -- Tikiwont 15:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

*Delete: Canadian Royal Family? Though, I understand about the Commonwealth of Nations, I've nevered heard the British Royal family called the Canadian Royal family (at least, not in Canada). GoodDay 22:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• Didn't read the article... did you? --G2bambino 22:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

::Well then, let's create the following articles - Australian Royal Family, New Zealand Royal Family, etc. My vote stands. GoodDay 22:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect: Begrudingly changing my vote. 'Redirect' is the only way to avoid multiple page creations (like Australian Royal Family etc). GoodDay 23:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Monarchy in Canada. The fact that the institutions are separate doesn't necessitate multiple articles here. Bearcat 19:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I'd just like to let interested folks here know that I have nominated Jamaican Royal Family for deletion. FrozenPurpleCube 23:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Close and merge (again); as others have said there is no valid reason for deletion here. Work on a merge or leave it alone. If it helps, Australia has a similar article: Monarchy in Australia John Vandenberg 12:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment You're missing the point - we already have a Monarchy in Canada article as well. We don't have a separate Australian Royal Family article — iridescenti (talk to me!) 15:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
    • No point was missed, but I wasnt clear. I agree with User cab; the previous Afd holds: keep/merge. A merge has been done in the past, so the edit history should be kept (per GFDL). John Vandenberg 23:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• If the contents here are moved back to Monarchy in Canada they're just going to get moved out again- replacing the information back there makes Monarchy in Canada 59 kilobytes long, upon which it's recommended to split the article down, as I had been doing previously. --G2bambino 18:26, 21 May 2007 (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.