Wikipedia talk:Notability (royalty)/Archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to the current talk page.

I'm submitting this proposal with the full knowledge that it will be shredded from every angle. First of all, I'm from the U.S., so I expect my lack of knowledge in this area will show through in my choice of words. Secondly, I expect to see plenty of objections from my fellow Americans and those from other countries without monarchies; why should some obscure 11 year old get her own article just because for being born? I don't know—she just should. Finally, there will be those who think even WP:BIO is too lax. I'll do my best to address all concerns.

I created this at the suggestion of another editor on AfD. If it passes, so much the better for Wikipedia. If it doesn't, my pride won't be hurt. This is my first time making a proposal, and I have no doubt I've made numerous mistakes. Please feel free to make any changes you feel are necessary, or call me out for my ignorance. Kafziel 19:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it should be 7th in line and i will ammend this, 10th is just to big a number as the further down the less notable they get. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 20:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Seems okay to me, I guess. Just out of curiosity, how did you arrive at "7th"? I mean, I know "10th" is pretty arbitrary (I just picked it because it's a nice round number) but 7th seems equally random. Kafziel 20:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
It gets harder to trace the higher you go, i would of wanted it lower my self maybe 5. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 20:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd say it either needs to be 10th (arbitrary and round), or something low like 3rd. If we're going to say 7, why not 8 or 9 or 16 for that matter? BTW - I came up with 3rd this way: Current King / Queen have two heirs. The 3rd in line would either be the first child of the first heir (ie whichever of Harry / William is the older child of Charles...I can never remember), or the first child of the current monarch's sibling. Either way, through that level they're likely to have a bit of media attention. Syrthiss 20:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed - *Changes* Matthew Fenton (contribs) 20:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Even if they fail 3rd, they may still be notable by WP:BIO so 3 is good. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 20:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I wonder what the farthest one in history was to actually take the throne (not just in England or the UK, but anywhere). I mean, did the sixth guy in line ever actually live long enough to make it that far? Whatever it is, I'd say that's the number to use. If the record gets broken someday, we could always change our standards (though I'd say if they need to look to the 13th guy in line to be King of a country, the world probably has bigger problems than guidelines on Wikipedia). Anyway, I don't know where to begin to look that up, but if anyone has a clue, I think that would be the best one to go by (and it would actually be based in historical fact, rather than arbitrary reasoning on our part). Kafziel 20:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

In three cases of succession by distant relatives well-known to royal genealogists, the eventual successors had been as far down the line as 8th in succession: Maximilian I of Pfalz-Zweibrucken became Elector of Bavaria in 1799; Carlo Alberto of Savoy-Carignan became King of Sardinia in 1831; and Friedrich Franz IV of Schwerin became {by right, though he never took the title} Grand Duke of Mecklenburg-Strelitz in 1914. But these cases simply illustrate that distant relatives do succeed to thrones. By no means do they exhaust the historical record. Successions in the houses of Bourbon (France), Lippe, Oldenburg (Denmark), Reuss and Schwartzburg come immediately to mind as needing to be checked to determine if a more remote dynast than 8th ever succeeded to their thrones -- and those are merely modern, Western European examples that come to mind without research. In fact, I object to inserting any criterion based upon a place in a monarchy's succession order for 2 reasons: 1. It would arbitrarily fall between siblings in many cases, even though there is no genuine reason to belive an older sibling is considered more "notable" than a younger one (where the heir apparent is not involved). 2. More importantly, lines of succession are highly Eurocentric. In many Asian and African monarchies, there is no such order because the monarch is chosen from among the royal family only after the reigning monarch dies or abdicates. -- birth order is irrelevant, or at least not decisive. I propose as an alternative that the cut-off (if one must exist) be based on degree of kinship to the de jure monarch. Since the royal family that receives the most media attention is the UK's, and British royal titles stop beyond first cousin to the reigning sovereign, that is a reasonable standard to start with. Lethiere 07:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the information. I've heard the whole "Eurocentric" argument, but it's not just Europe that has an order of succession. Countries that choose their leaders at the last minute are very much the exception, not the rule, even in Africa and Asia. It's only one criterion; there are others that can still make the claim for notability.
Nobody said that it is "just Europe that has an order of succession" (Europe has 10 monarchies at present, so there are 10 orders of succession, not one). I said, rather, that many non-European monarchies have not used the concept of an order of succession. "Countries that choose their leaders at the last minute are very much the exception" is simply incorrect -- as well as Eurocentric, since in many monarchies the successor is a matter of considerable discussion, planning and grooming during the previous reign, but no decision is finalized or successor announced during the current monarch's lifetime out of respect. In other non-Western monarchies the sovereign chooses or nominates an heir, in which case there is only one person in the line of succession, and only after that person has been designated as such -- not by right of descent. Where did you get the notion that absence of a line of succession is "very much the exception" in current monarchies? The present sovereigns of Cambodia, Lesotho, Oman, Swaziland, KwaZulu-Natal, among others, were all chosen to reign following an interregnum, being members of the royal family but not in any "order of succession" previously. I don't know how many monarchies you want to dismiss as irrelevant, but the world has far fewer of them on any continent than in the past, and a rule on royalty articles that ignores or denigrates their dynastic successions will be neither accurate, nor useful, nor fair. KwaZulu-Natal is a good example: The likely heir after King Goodwill Zwelithini's death is Prince Misuzulu, because his mother, Queen Mantfombi, is the sister of the present King of Swaziland, Mswati III, whereas the other queens are not of royal birth. Yet Misuzulu would not fall within the first ten dynasts by primogeniture among the sons and grandsons of King Goodwill. Since European dynasties already receive far more published coverage in English than do non-European ones, why set up a criterion that makes it even easier for them to qualify for an entry in Wikipedia, yet is unavailable to a number of non-European dynasties? Has this been balanced off by including a criterion that is easier for non-Europeans to meet than Europeans?
I don't think using familial relationships is a good solution. A large percentage of royalty in any given country has no relationship to the monarch whatsoever. They may come from different families who will never succeed to the throne, or they even may be pretenders to the throne, enemies of the monarch. If things like that are the case (or if they come from a country without an order of succession) they just have to satisfy other requirements, but shouldn't be excluded for their lack of blood relations. Kafziel 12:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Once again, the statement "A large percentage of royalty in any given country has no relationship to the monarch whatsoever" is completely inaccurate, and misapprehends the subject under discussion. Please name any royal who is 10th or nearer in succession to a throne yet who is not related to the present occupant of that throne? You cite in support of your point that a royal may belong to a different dynasty or even be an enemy pretender of the incumbent monarch. But such persons would not qualify for a Wiki article under your proposal either, since it offers no criteria for articles on pretenders or members of dethroned dynasties. Since all members of a royal family are related to the de jure monarch, degree of kinship to that monarch is a better criterion for Wiki "notability" than an arbitrary number in a succession order which may not even exist. Lethiere 01:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
You seem to be confused about the requirements here.
I'm not "confused", I disagree with a criterion you want to be a requirement. I offered specific information about that criterion in response to your request; I objected to it for 2 clearly specified reasons; I offered examples to illustrate my objections; and I offered an alternative criterion. Rather than acknowledge that there is no good reason a criterion should be adopted that excludes dynasts arbitrarily and favors Western-style dynasties over others, you asserted one irrelevant defense of it à la "Yes it may exclude some unnecessarily, but they can get in other ways, so let's leave it in", and one erroneous defense à la "A large percentage of royalty in any given country has no relationship to the monarch whasotever".
This is the last reply I'm going to make to you on this thread, because I really feel like I'm wasting my time, so please read it carefully.
I've done so. You began well, acknowledging, "I'm submitting this proposal with the full knowledge that it will be shredded from every angle...If it passes, so much the better for Wikipedia. If it doesn't, my pride won't be hurt. This is my first time making a proposal, and I have no doubt I've made numerous mistakes. Please feel free to make any changes you feel are necessary, or call me out for my ignorance." But apparently that invitation to critique was not sincerely meant or is now being renegged upon.
Being within 10th place in the order of succession is not a requirement. It is one possible qualifier. A person only needs to satisfy two out of five.
The point is, as others have said repeatedly, why keep it in at all? No defense of the #10 as a cut-off has been put forth (although your fellow advocate on this has argued for even lower numbers and he is unequivocal about why lower numbers aren't arbitrary: he wants to reduce treatment of royals as special by reducing the numbers of articles about them on Wikipedia). Yet objections to that criterion have been identified and illustrated: Any number selected is inherently arbitrary since it will exclude some relatives of the monarch whose relationship to the sovereign is exactly the same. We can foresee that relatives of some non-Western monarchs will find it more difficult to qualifiy for inclusion than their European counterparts. An alternative way of imposing a limit on a monarch's relatives has been suggested that avoids those problems. So then why must there be a numeric cut-off?
There are many minor nobles who are not related to the House of Windsor who are members of a national Order, who hold positions within the government, or who have simply garnered the most fleeting of mentions in the media (mentions which would not be considered significant enough to qualify for WP:BIO, but would be enough for this guideline). That's enough to qualify them, regardless of the order of succession.
Okay, so it's finally clear where the confusion in this discussion is coming from: Nobility is not royalty, and I have not been addressing criteria for "notability" of nobles because the subject of this talk-page is the criteria applicable to royalty only. Read your own words:

"This page gives some rough guidelines which Wikipedia editors use to decide if a member of a royal family should have an article on Wikipedia....A royal family typically includes the spouse of the reigning monarch, any or all surviving spouses of a deceased monarch, and the children, grandchildren, great grandchildren, brothers, sisters, and cousins of the reigning monarch, as well as their spouses...A member of a royal family is definitely notable if he or she verifiably meets any two of the following criteria:"

Thus, we are editing a Wiki document that offers no criteria for evaluating the nobility's inclusion in Wikipedia, but you have inserted criteria you apparently think might help get obscure nobles in the door, while I'm concentrating on getting royalty in. Please re-read your article and re-consider.
As for this being Eurocentric, I'm sorry you feel that way but you're wrong. Only 7 out of the 45 current monarchies are elective. All the rest use some form of succession order and, in fact, even most of the elective monarchies have an established order of succession. Hell, even the United States has one, from the President right on down to the Secretary of Veterans' Affairs. Order of succession is not the same as primogeniture, and it's a short-lived country indeed that doesn't have the slightest inkling what to do if their king or president is killed.
Even if that ratio were correct (and it's not) why impose a criterion that favors Western monarchies at all when there are other criteria that can be substituted? You are starting from the assumption that the cut-off at succession spot #10 has some proven utility in this process, whereas that is the very point that needs to be established. Since it is unnecessary, arguably biased and controversial, why not substitute an alternative that does not raise those issues?
This has nothing to do with being biased. I don't care if he's from Scotland or Zimbabwe, if a person has no title, has never done anything of note, holds no position in government whatsoever, is not a member of any national order, has never had the slightest mention in the media, and fails WP:BIO, then he simply doesn't rate an article. As things stand right now, he would be ineligible simply for failing BIO anyway. This guideline at least gives him a chance. We have to draw the line somewhere, or Billy Lee Jackson from Podunk, Mississippi could rate an article because his great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great uncle was the Duke of Orange or something. The requirements here keep that from happening.
You've had fun setting up a very wobbly strawman here, so please go ahead and enjoy setting him afire. But since the alternative criterion I've suggested wouldn't have the effect you describe, your example of someone who doesn't deserve a Wiki article but will be entitled to one anyway unless your proposal is accepted forthwith without amendment -- is bunk. And you know it.
Now, if you have some specific changes you'd like to make, or some additional criteria you think should be added, propose them under a new heading and the group can discuss them. But please stop trying to make this seem like some kind of oppressive guideline, when it's by far the most lax biographical guideline Wikipedia has ever seen. Kafziel 01:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
The "specific changes" were proposed by me way up-thread. You're fully entitled to express indifference to inclusive criteria for Wiki articles. But that doesn't make indifference inclusive, and it doesn't make inclusiveness an unworthy goal for Wiki.Lethiere 06:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I think the best place is a good old book (librarys (scary old women -- no thanks!)) or maybe theres some website detailing family trees on the web for royals. (PS: Posted a notice to the pump) Matthew Fenton (contribs) 21:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not particularly happy about these criteria. For a start, Lady Louise Windsor wouldn't meet these notability criteria, being a small child (she only barely meets No.1, so doesn't meet the necessary two criteria), but it would be lunacy not to include her in Wikipedia. Some idiot (probably an anti-royalist) could still come along and slap a non-notability tag on the article, citing these criteria. In fact, I can see this being used on crusades by anti-royalists to attempt to delete as many articles on royals as possible. -- Necrothesp 21:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

She doesnt look notable. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 21:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
There you go. You just proved my point. However, since she's the Queen's granddaughter it's pretty likely that almost everyone in Britain has heard of her. Probably far more than some obscure soap opera actress or reality TV show contestant. Yet they get their articles here. Notability is far too difficult to quantify in such black and white terms. Some people really are famous for just being born. -- Necrothesp 21:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I've never heard of her. I'm british. I read the newspaper and watch the news. Charcters are known via: Word of mouth, people watching them etc. Royals are known for: "Being born". Matthew Fenton (contribs) 21:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
What, you didn't know that Prince Edward and Sophie had a child? You must live in a box! But the point is, most people in the UK do know and many people will be interested in her, even though she does not meet the criteria set out here. Grandchildren of the most prominent monarch in the world are inherently notable because of media and public interest. In fact, I think anyone in the direct line of any living monarch is inherently notable for these reasons. -- Necrothesp 22:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
If was to do something notable in the future and pass WP:BIO then an article can be created on her. However she is not notable yet. Also, why should i know of her? Shes nothing special is she? I know of Prince Edward (I have heard of him on the news.. but not his wife) Matthew Fenton (contribs) 22:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, she definitely qualifies under this guideline. She has been mentioned in news articles and has the title "Princess of Wessex." That's two (#1 and #3). Kafziel 22:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually, no she doesn't. There is no such title as "Princess of Wessex". She is a princess, although she is never referred to using the term, but it's hardly a "substantive title" as listed at No.3. If "prince" and "princess", the commonest titles accorded to royalty, were included under No.3 then that would be different, but bear in mind that that would discriminate against the British Royal Family, which grants the title sparingly (usually only to children and grandchildren of a monarch), as opposed to, say, the Russian Royal Family and many German royal families, which granted the title left, right and centre, frequently to obscure distant cousins. -- Necrothesp 22:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Contents

What problem is this trying to solve?

Has there been a rash of vanity articles about royalty? Have bios on royal family members been clogging up Afd with controversy? I'm not generally in favor of guidelines of the form "having done X automatically makes one notable", but if X is something like winning a Nobel Prize or being a member of a royal family, those things seem significant to me, just by common sense. I guess I'm wondering why we'd need a guideline here. Friday (talk) 23:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Seconded. -- Necrothesp 23:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
To establish notability criteria for those that may not be notable. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 07:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
It seems some people are missing the point here. This guideline isn't to make it harder for royalty to have articles; it makes it easier. Nobles who might not meet the criteria for inclusion under WP:BIO can still be included if they meet the criteria here. The standards set here are less strict than BIO, simply because they are royalty. They require nothing but a passing mention in the media (rather than the person being the main subject, as in BIO) and a reasonable proximity to the crown (as stated above, my initial proposal was 10th in the order of succession). That's a lot easier than Wikipedia's standards for inclusion of the average Joe. If a person would meet the standards set at BIO, there's no need to even use ROYAL. This is just for people who don't meet BIO, but may still be notable simply because of their family. Kafziel 10:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
I understand what you're saying, but would most of these people not be notable anyway due to the BIO criterion of: "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events"? Well, in the case of royals, being born frequently is a newsworthy event in and of itself. My worry is that people will use these new criteria as an excuse to slap non-notability claims on a lot of people. And boy, do some people not need much of an excuse (whether in pursuit of an agenda or just for the enjoyment of rubbing out other people's work)! -- Necrothesp 11:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Lots of babys being born are newsworthy events. in fact i see lots of annonucements or pictures daily in the news paper. Royals are no differnt. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 11:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
You see, that's where we must agree to disagree. -- Necrothesp 11:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Friday above. Why is WP:BIO not sufficient in these cases? As long as royal articles meet the WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR policies there is no need, IMO, for specific criteria to establish notability. I am not aware of partiularly many articles that either are or should be brought to AfD in this category. Eluchil404 23:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

If the issue needed clarification (I don't see that it does, right now), isn't the best answer adding a sentence about royalty to WP:BIO rather than having a guideline for royalty? As pointed out above, simply being born into a royal family is an event that gets significant media coverage. Friday (talk) 13:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Nah dont think so.. only immediate family generally get coverage. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 13:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
It's possible that minor royalty could get an article or two in the UK, but that's certainly not the case everywhere. Not every country has the media infrastructure that the West has. This is meant to cover not only the UK, not only Europe, but the entire world. This proposal came about after a suggestion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Luisa Maria, Archduchess of Austria-Este. WP:BIO seems to require more coverage than is available for her, but several editors contend that she is still notable. This is a way to set down a basis for that. There are many similar articles for which this AfD may set a precedent, so what does it hurt to quantify the requirements with a guideline? If athletes and porn stars can have their own guidelines, why not royalty?
I also want to reiterate that I'm an American, so it's very possible that I made some mistakes in wording the guideline. That's why I encourage everyone to make whatever changes may be necessary. For example, maybe my use of "substantive title" was too harsh a requirement. Maybe the required ranking in the order of succession is too high. Maybe it's best to look at some articles that have been deemed notable by consensus and see how to make these guidelines reflect what made them notable.
This can be good for articles on royalty, but it can't be bad for them. At worst, they will be held to the standards at WP:BIO, which they already are anyway. At best, they may find exceptions to that rule here. Either way, this could simplify the debate process. Kafziel 14:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Of course it can't be "bad" for royalty, since their problem is overwhelmingly how to maximize their privacy, rather than to diminish it via broader coverage of their lives. But it can be bad for those interested in articles on royalty, and it is my sense from comments on this article and the one on Princess Luisa Maria, Archduchess of Austria-Este that the attempt to "quantify" their notability is motivated by a desire to reduce coverage of royalty regardless of how much interest in them there may actually be. I propose a different approach to this issue, as follows:
  1. Royalty are deemed intrinsically noteworthy, not because of personal deeds, but because their kinship to monarchs confers upon them national (and sometimes international) position (usually, though not invariably, reflected by title), prominence, and constitutional relevance.
  2. Excluding them would be a reversal of encyclopaedic practice, typically adocated for on relatively recent, egalitarian principles that are inadmissably POV: the belief by some that royalty shouldn't be considered notable may be a growing trend, but it does not make them non-notable. Whereas treating royalty as non-notable is ahistorical (not to mention Western-centric): The burden of proof that historical encyclopaedic practice has been overturned due to a sufficiently great change in current standards of notability (rather than due to, e.g. space considerations -- a limitation not relevant to Wiki) rests upon the advocate for change. Thanks to broader literacy, more affordable periodicals, and the Internet, it is just as likely that popular interest in the lives of royalty has grown rather than diminished.
  3. Thus far no argument has been put forth here that royalty have lost notability -- rather, the chief argument presented here is, implicitly, that they did not deserve it previously, and that Wiki should pro-actively strip them of it or substantially reduce it. Not Wiki's proper job.
I don't even know what that means. As things stand right now, if they don't meet WP:BIO, they can be deleted. This gives them another way to get the article to stay. Please re-read the guideline, rather than jumping to conclusions on the talk page. This has nothing to do with stripping them of notability; rather, it is about proving that they are notable even if they've never done anything but be born into a royal family. Kafziel 12:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  1. Because this is the English version of Wiki, it will be easier to dismiss royalty from non-English speaking countries than those from English-speaking ones. For instance, in the case of Luisa Maria, the question of notability would not get serious consideration if the princess in question were a granddaughter of Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom (e.g. Princess Beatrice of York) rather than of Albert II of Belgium, although both are current monarchs. Therefore criteria adopted here should not be crafted so as to discriminate against non-British royalty in terms of "notability". In many non-European monarchies, there is no established line of succession to the throne because the monarch is chosen from among the royal family only after the reigning monarch's death or abdication: The present Kings of Cambodia, Nepal and Swaziland would not have been within the preceding sovereign's three next-of-kin as calculated by Western-style primogeniture, but that doesn't mean articles about them should have been blackballed from Wikipedia, especially since all three were well-known candidates prior to enthronement.
If they were well-known, then they should be able to pass WP:BIO. Kafziel 12:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  1. Even within Western Europe, there is no way to avoid arbitrariness by narrowly defining propinquity to the monarch as the criterion for notability within dynasties. Franz Joseph II, late father of the reigning Prince of Liechtenstein, inherited the throne in 1938 from a first-cousin-twice-removed, yet he had been his country's anticipated sovereign since the turn of the 20th century. Henri IV "le Grand" inherited the throne of France from his 9th-cousin-15-times-removed in 1589. In 1831 Carlo Alberto of Savoy, Prince of Carignano inherited headship of his dynasty and kingship of Sardinia from King Carlo Felice, his 5th-cousin-once-removed. The possibility of a remote relative ascending the throne of Britain due to the sudden extinction of the entire known royal family in a freak accident was the premise of the 1991 comedy King Ralph. By the coincidence of absence, the present King Gyanendra of Nepal was third in the line of succession when he inherited the crown from his nephew, Dipendra in 2001. But he could just as easily have been a much more distant relative, since Dipendra is believed to have assassinated 10 members of the royal family (including himself) and wounded four others in a single round of gunfire. It therefore makes more sense to define the notable members of a monarch's family in terms of their relationship to that monarch, than by an arbitrary number: In addition to the monarch's spouse and living ancestors, the scope should include at least the heir-presumptive (if any), descendants, siblings, aunts/uncles, and dynastic first cousins. These are the persons whom, regardless of title or lack thereof, are normally treated as the "royal family" in the UK, receiving media coverage throughout their lives based on that kinship alone. To cut the number off at 3, for instance, would actually leave out some of the living children of the current monarchs of Belgium, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Spain and the United Kingdom, despite the fact that all of them are regarded as "notable" in their respective countries. Lethiere 03:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
[I know I'm not supposed to edit archive pages, but Henry IV was 9th cousin, once removed to Henry III, not fifteen times removed. Henry IV was the great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandson of Louis IX, while Henry III was the great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandson of Louis IX, the common ancestor through whom Henry IV's claim was based. Of course, they were also more closely related, on the maternal side - they were second cousins through their common descent from Charles of Angouleme, father to Francis I, and they were brothers-in-law, but neither of these provided Henry IV's claim to the throne. john k 13:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)]
The order of succession requirement was arbitrarily changed from 10th to 7th to 3rd. Now that we have had more than 5 minutes of discussion I am changing it back to 10th, as I think that will solve a lot of the problems here. Kafziel 12:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Friday -- unless this is intended to solve some sort of actual controversy that is taking place, it seems entirely arbitrary. How do these criteria relate with the actual treatment of such articles on AFD -- e.g. if an article on a royal is mentioned in "multiple, independent, non-trivial published works," but does not meet the other criteria, is it usually deleted? Unless a compelling reason can be presented that this either (1) is necessary to resolve a conflict or (2) is a useful description of existing practice, there's no reason to add more guidelines that distract from the core content policies. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

  • To rid wikipedia of those that are non-notable. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 07:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Could you provide some examples in which the existing deletion process has failed to do so? Christopher Parham (talk) 07:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • No about to have brekfast, but if you thru a royal cat. i'm sure youll see a mirage of royals with one line who have done nothing to be considerd notable. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 07:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • The point of this is to set in stone criteria for what makes a royal notable. Just like notability for pornstars or celebs. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 08:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • What's wrong with the existing standard for biographies? Christopher Parham (talk) 17:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Are you serious? 31kb have been spent on this page discussing that. I'll quote directly from the proposal's introduction: "While ruling monarchs and their immediate families are clearly notable, the line of ascension may be quite long. In many cases, stories focused on more distant successors may be difficult to come by. However, simply being a part of a notable family and a long-standing royal tradition may confer some measure of notability not generally applicable to the average person." WP:BIO doesn't make allowances for royalty. This does. Kafziel 12:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Well you and Matthew seem to be working at cross purposes -- he says the point of this is to rid Wikipedia of the flood of non-notable royals, while you seem to think it will protect articles that would otherwise be deleted. It's difficult to endorse a proposal when its proponents don't agree on what it is supposed to do. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not really sure why it matters what a particular editor says about it; what matters is what the guideline says. There's nothing at all in the guideline that would indicate an intent to rid Wikipedia of articles. It even encourages discussion and improvement as preferable to AfD, even for articles that do not seem to meet the standards here. Kafziel 17:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Well what do you expect (or want) the practical effects of this guideline to be? What positive change in the encyclopedia will it encourage? What I'm trying to drive at is whether there is a significant content problem that this guideline will address. Without such it doesn't seem very useful. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
The same practical effects as any other notability guideline. To establish some criteria for creating articles on the subject, to help smooth the AfD process by quickly finding consensus to keep (or, if need be, delete), and to discourage articles from being unnecessarily marked for merges or deletions in the first place. Kafziel 04:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Micronations

There needs to be some type of restrictions on which monarchies/nations a royal may represent. If no such limitation is present then individuals such as Prince Roy I of Sealand qualifies as royal despite his nation not being officially recognized by any other nation. Similar problems could be created by other manufactured claims from the variety of micronations that claim to exist. --Allen3 talk 12:17, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Only generally recognised nations should be allowed. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 12:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
I had Sealand in mind when I wrote the stipulation that the country must be sovereign. Perhaps I should clarify further; that the sovereignty of the nation must be recognized internationally (seems like splitting hairs, since unrecognized sovereignty is not sovereignty, but it can't hurt to be specific). Kafziel 22:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Further thoughts...

While I can see any problems with this, seeing as I told Kafziel that I'd come here to comment, I should. Right now I think that this page is a good, solid policy statement, that, while not making it impossible or too difficult to delete Prince X's second twice removed cousin's, vainity page, does set out a good set of guidlines for users to go by. I think that what we should concentrate on now is simply work on the wording etc. For example, I added this to the page:

"Important note: Failing to satisfy the notability guidelines is not a criterion for speedy deletion. An article that fails to even claim that the subject of the article is notable can be speedy deleted under criterion A7, however. A mere claim of notability, even if contested, may avoid deletion under A7 and require a full Article for Deletion process to determine if the subject of the article is notable."

As it is closer resembles other policy layouts. I hope this is okay. Otherwise, I think this is looking pretty good. Thε Halo Θ 12:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The purpose of this guideline

It seems quite strange to me that the biggest opponents thus far are those who think royals are inherently notable. That's exactly what this guideline is saying. WP:ROYAL is meant to keep articles from being unnecessarily sent to AfD. Its requirements are less strict than WP:BIO. I keep seeing, "Well, so-and-so doesn't meet these criteria but gets lots of media coverage." If that's the case, they already meet BIO and this has nothing to do with them. This is not meant to find a way to delete articles about royalty; this is a way to help articles stay that could otherwise be deleted.

Yes, articles on even the most minor royalty usually survive AfD. But only after long debate, and usually with a "no consensus" rather than a "keep". Because those voting keep don't have a solid basis for their reasoning, and it comes down to a matter of opinion. This would give people a guideline on which to base their reasons. If a noble fails BIO put passes this, they are notable. If a noble fails this but passes BIO, they are notable. It's win-win.

So if anyone thinks this guideline somehow makes it easier to delete an article on royalty, please give me an example of how someone could fail WP:ROYAL and WP:BIO and still be considered notable. Kafziel 12:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

As I said, I don't think it will make it easier to delete articles, but I do think it may encourage people to nominate them for AfD or put a WP:PROD notice on them if they believe they do not meet the criteria proposed here. I know that they may well still pass WP:BIO criteria, but that doesn't stop people with an agenda from trying it on. Invent a specific set of criteria (instead of the general criteria in BIO) for notability of a specific set of individuals and somebody will use it to claim that somebody is not notable. -- Necrothesp 13:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I can't comment on conspiracy theories; that's not actionable. "People with an agenda" will always try to get those articles deleted, whether this guideline is here or not. This guideline does absolutely nothing to encourage prodding or AfDing articles. In fact, this guideline specifically tells people to do their best not to nominate articles on royalty for AfD, even if they don't meet these guidelines. The guidelines set out here are very easy to meet. If a person can't meet them and fails BIO, I guess they shouldn't have an article. I haven't seen an instance of that happening yet. As I said, please give me one example of a person who fails BIO and fails ROYAL who you think should still have an article, and I will be happy to make whatever changes are needed. Kafziel 13:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not making any claims that there is a conspiracy theory. That would just be silly. I just think having specific guidelines on notability of specific groups encourages claims of non-notability if people fail those guidelines (even if they pass the main guidelines at BIO). That's all. And many royals would fail these guidelines even if they pass BIO. -- Necrothesp 16:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
The guideline specifically says that even if they don't meet these criteria, they are still notable if they pass BIO. If they meet BIO, they're in. I don't really know how to make it any more clear than it already is in the guideline itself. I guess I'll change it to bold text. Kafziel 16:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Maybe size 72 :-P? Matthew Fenton (contribs) 16:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Archive This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to the current talk page.