Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jamaican Royal Family

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 keep, title already moved to Monarchy in Jamaica. Arkyan • ^(talk) 22:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jamaican Royal Family

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

I came across this page after reading Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canadian Royal Family (second nom) and I feel that the same reasons for deletion that were brought up there apply here. It may be worthwhile to discuss the feelings of the Jamaican people for being part of the British Monarchy or members of the House of Windsor, assuming there are valid sources for it. However, this page is not intended to do that, and may well be intended as a disruptive response to the original AFD. FrozenPurpleCube 22:58, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - the article needs more sourcing but monarchies have inherent notability. Comparisons with Canadian Royal Family are not helpful since each article must be assessed on its merits. In any case, the Canadian article has an easy redirect to Monarchy in Canada but no similar redirect is available here. There is significant Jamaica-related material in the article that justifies its separate existence from British Royal Family and I don't see any major POV issues. TerriersFan 23:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to write or propose an article on Monarchy in Jamaica if you so desire. In any case, I see nothing significant in this article to justify its existence as a separate page compared to British Royal Family. I'm not even sure there's enough to merit a separate section in that page. So, what do you consider significant? FrozenPurpleCube 23:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete for choice as per arguments already made on Canadian Royal Family, but go with whatever the Canada result decides for consistency. If that results in a keep, someone will presumably need to write Royal Family articles for the other 14 Commonwealth Realms — Royal Family of Tuvalu, anyone? — iridescenti (talk to me!) 23:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - I agree which is why I am converting it to Monarchy in Jamaica in line with the other realms. TerriersFan 00:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as per TerriersFan's move; if it moves back, revert to my previous position and delete — iridescenti (talk to me!) 00:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Now that it has been changed to Monarchy in Jamaica there is plenty of material to merit this article. Davewild 08:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, articles of this nature are warranted, esp. with the name change. see Monarchy in Australia. John Vandenberg 12:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment You know, it's generally bad form to "move" an article while it's under discussion at AFD. I leave it to some helpful admin to sort it out. FrozenPurpleCube 14:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - I am an admin and I can assure you that a move is not 'bad form' whatever that means. When, as here, it is clear that a move to a new title will attain consensus then a move is just fine. The purpose of an AfD is to attain a consensus, not to win some points scoring contest. What is clear is that folks are profoundly unhappy about a 'X Royal Family' series of articles but accept the need for 'Monarchy in X' and in this case I have no doubt that the move to the new title will resolve matters. TerriersFan 22:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I hope so too, and hey, if you can make a good article on the Monarchy of Jamaica, go right ahead. More power to you. I wouldn't have moved it without seeing more consensus first, but just so long as you note the problems people have expressed above and in the Canadian Royal Family AFD as well, it'll hopefully address the major problem with it. FrozenPurpleCube 22:51, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

*Redirect - Should be redirected to British Royal Family, afterall it's exact same family. GoodDay 23:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - erm I would refer my Honourable Friend to the fact that the article is now titled Monarchy in Jamaica in line with a number of similar articles (Monarchy in New Zealand, Monarchy in Australia and Monarchy in Canada) and that the content is now quite dissimilar to that in British Royal Family. TerriersFan 23:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - Just noticed (thus the Edit Conflict, earlier). GoodDay 23:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I assume you mean "Keep as the new article" rather than the old one? I think we're all in agreement that the idea of a Jamaican Royal Family as distinct from the British one is dubious, but that the role of the monarchy in Jamaica is less so, but I'd just rather be sure. FrozenPurpleCube 23:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Yep, similar articles Monarchy in Canada (long ago approved) & Canadian Royal Family (under AfD). Thus my confusion earlier. GoodDay 23:27, 20 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.