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 no consensus. -- Scott Burley (talk) 07:12, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of British monarchy records[edit]

List of British monarchy records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is nothing but a collection of trivia. The utter lack of reliable sources strongly suggests that compiling information about "British monarchy records", such as "the greatest age difference of an outgoing British monarch and successor" or "the queen regnant with the most pregnancies", is of no interest to scholars. Surtsicna (talk) 11:37, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:05, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:05, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. PATH SLOPU 13:31, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep. Collections of widely available facts are of legitimate interest to many without the pretension of designating any particular "reliable source" for them and statistical comparisons are self-evident. LE (talk) 16:23, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't be ridiculous. The "greatest age difference of an outgoing British monarch and successor" is not a widely available fact. That the oldest monarch at the time of his marriage was Edward I is not a widely available fact. Things like these definitely require a reliable source. The best this article can hope for is to synthesize conclusions from different sources, which is forbidden but presumably better than having no sources at all. But Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. We have a policy that specifically says that Wikipedia articles should not be lists of unexplained statistics. Surtsicna (talk) 17:36, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • When various English monarchs were born and when they married are widely available facts and mathematics is a widely available skill. Establishing which interval was longest is not something that needs great scholarship to establish. This article has existed for about a dozen years so why pick on it now? LE (talk) 19:29, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, and taking raw data and reaching your own conclusions through scholarship (even non-great scholarship) is WP:SYNTH. Agricolae (talk) 01:16, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Which is a clear example of the policies Wikipedia needs to abolish! LE (talk) 06:14, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yeah... no. Surtsicna (talk) 08:43, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • And if this trivia is indeed of interest to many, it will not be difficult to find sources establishing the notability of the topic. Surtsicna (talk) 17:37, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Most of this is trivia, and much of it is synthesis - we aren't supposed to be reaching conclusions (however self-evident we think they are) that are not found in reliable sources. The need for a source both avoids synthesis and demonstrates that someone outside of the Wikiverse thinks it is noteworthy. Agricolae (talk) 17:58, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another such list with similar trivia and synthesis problems: Records of heads of state. Agricolae (talk) 20:41, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Another case where the only problem is that anyone objects! LE (talk) 23:32, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTTRIVIA and ROYAL FANCRUFT. Ajf773 (talk) 18:58, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/merge Crazy amount of trivia and fancruft per Ajf. List of monarchs in Britain by length of reign and List of British monarchs by longevity could absorb some of what's not just minutiae. I could see List of British monarchs taking in a condensed table though if there's some sourcing. Reywas92^Talk 19:02, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak merge per Reywas92. Mosaicberry (talk) 00:28, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Textbook example if list-cruft. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:47, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Most of this article centers around the English monarchs, not British or Scottish, thus we should modify the summary-section a bit and merge it with List of English Monarchs. Go-Chlodio (talk) 09:10, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem here is not only that the topic is not notable, it is that the content is both unreferenced trivia and original research-synthesis. We absolutely don't want to just move it to another page. Agricolae (talk) 17:07, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Original research should be highly praised and sought after as nothing else gives any article independent value. The powers that want to make Wikipedia a pile of vomit that does nothing but regurgitate what can (and therefore should) be found elsewhere get far too much respect! LE (talk) 23:31, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Umm, you do realize that WP:No Original Research is one of the core content policies of Wikipedia, one of its founding principles? To quote, "Wikipedia articles must not contain original research". Not much ambiguity there. Agricolae (talk) 23:52, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • And I trust I left no ambiguity as to my contempt for that attitude. Textbook example of "a custom more honoured in the breach than the observance." Praise complaint, not compliance; eschew deference, demand defiance. But on a self-published site that regards other self-published sites being self-published sites as something wrong with them, I realize the herd mentality is strong. LE (talk) 14:45, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • And I realize there ought to be a more serious investigation of your contributions than a single AfD. Surtsicna (talk) 15:13, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • Surt sick' ness, n. [Fm Surtsicna, one of the most seriously afflicted] 1. The idee fixe that Wikipedia needs less of what it actually needs more of; also, irrational attachment to misguided policies that can be twisted to achieve this end. LE (talk) 16:24, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • The malady is believed to be transmitted by an infected Village Pump.
• Keep -- The subject is of sufficient interest to be worth having. A few of the topics are a bit silly, like length of marriage zero because never married. so prune. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:47, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sufficient interest for whom? Where are the sources confirming the notability of the topic? Surtsicna (talk) 18:17, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete - this looks to me like a poorly conceived spin-off of List of monarchs in Britain by length of reign (in fact, based on the comment at this articles creation, that is exactly what this is). For a list, I don't see what connects these articles in sources. That is, is there a reliable source which organizes British monarchs by their oddities relative to each other? If so, I'd be happy to change my !vote. But as it is, listing in this way seems to fail NOR (and strikes me as unencyclopedic, if lots of fun). Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:58, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as list cruft. The longevity record is of encyclopedic importance but that is covered elsewhere. Now, as for the comments of @Agricolae above: Original research in Wikipedia terms means undocumented scientific "discoveries" and novel interpretations of history not covered in published sources. Every single article at Wikipedia and every single list includes facts constructed in a unique way. Editorial decisions are made about what to include or exclude and material is presented in an original manner, otherwise it would be plagiarism. So the "original research is prohibited" handwringing is entirely misplaced here, in my estimation. There is plenty of room for deletion on the grounds that this is an aggregation of undocumented trivia. Carrite (talk) 20:31, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The compiler here has not just compiled facts in a novel way, they have reached novel conclusions. "Sophia of Hanover was heir presumptive"and "Sophia of Hanover died aged 83 years 237 days" are both recorded facts found in sources. "Sophia of Hanover was the oldest ever heir presumptive who died while in waiting" is likely not (at least no reference is given). It would be an 'interpretation not covered in published sources', as you say. To quote WP:SYNTH (part of WP:NOR), "'A and B, therefore C' is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article." Agricolae (talk) 23:35, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Again... the independent value of an article is measured exclusively by what it contains that can not be found anywhere else. If you want to compile bibliographies don't bother stitching together a text. If somebody else has already said it there is no point in repeating it without adding anything. LE (talk) 03:21, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • If nobody else has already said it, it isn't WP:V. There seems to be more than one core policy you cannot abide. Agricolae (talk) 04:09, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Wikipedia certainly has its share of problematic policies. It's a shame when people derive a sense of community from being part of the problem. LE (talk) 04:19, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- The prevalence of usage of this kind of record in the media shows that the interest is there for a start. (A 30-second search for the first three facts gives [1][2][3], for example.) Also the label of 'trivia' is a pernicious one as even the most scholarly work will contain facts that are not consequential within the text, but nonetheless notable for some reason. Without them subsequent refinement of such scholarship becomes more difficult. But then if the issue is that more references are needed then that's a different matter; one for article improvement, not deletion. Smb1001 (talk) 13:46, 16 April 2019 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Smb1001 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]
  • What your 30-second search confirmed is in List of monarchs in Britain by length of reign. Now, can we honestly say that there is interest in media or scholarship in the greatest age difference between a predecessor and a successor, or in a consort's age at marriage, or who the eldest female was at accession, etc?
    The issue is not that more references are needed but that references are unobtainable for the vast majority of stuff listed there. Who says which monarchs hold the record for having the lowest number of children? Who says that Victoria was the shortest monarch and how is that even possible when some died as children and some have never been measured? Who says that Edward I was the oldest monarch to become a parent and Harold Harefoot the youngest? Who outside Wikipedia has ever talked about the "longest single tenure for a male heir-presumptive"? Describing this as trivia is not pernicious but generous. Much of it is plain horseshit. Surtsicna (talk) 14:33, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your habit of deriding a page's content by its most egregious elements does not help your cause; you're making a case for pruning, not deletion. Smb1001 (talk) 15:06, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Those are not this page's most egregious elements. Surtsicna (talk) 16:04, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • More importantly, if you prune the egregious and also the mundane, there is basically nothing left, so I would prune this by by cutting it off at the base and burning the stump. Agricolae (talk) 03:40, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • That references are unobtainable elsewhere is precisely what makes the case for having them here. Remember, only original research can ever give an article independent value. The Guiness Book has intermittently covered a number of the categories in the article but having the best collection anywhere is something to aspire to, not be ashamed of.LE (talk) 18:08, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Go write a blog then. Original research does not belong on Wikipedia. Surtsicna (talk) 18:18, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per policy. ——SerialNumber54129 11:45, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Yes, it's trivia, but some trivia is useful and interesting. This is one of those collections. It's not indiscriminate. No good reason for deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:11, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Isn't that a prime example of "I like it therefore we should keep it"? Usefulness is also no reason to keep something, otherwise this project would be swarmed by recipes and DIY instructions. And a very good reason to delete this is that it consists entirely of original research, as admitted by the major contributor right here. Surtsicna (talk) 12:26, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, it isn't OR. OR is widely misinterpreted. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:36, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Let's be serious. Not only does the whole thing scream original research by synthesis, the biggest contributor says right here that he/she aspires to present his/her original research on Wikipedia. Surtsicna (talk) 12:45, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Very much WP:IDONTLIKEIT, I fear. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:11, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • If you are referring to original research, then yes, I very much don't like it - especially when the author confirms it's original research, expresses desire to write more original research, and gets indefinitely blocked for it. Surtsicna (talk) 13:47, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (but prune?) per above reasons by Peterkingiron, Smb1001, Necrothesp, etc. Paintspot Infez (talk) 21:57, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.