Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Descendants of Charles II of England

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 delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:02, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Descendants of Charles II of England

Descendants of Charles II of England (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)

Apparently random collection of some lines deriving from Charles II, who is the ancestor of a huge number of British aristocrats. Largely sourced to a genealogical directory which is not a reliable source: it was designed by a computer scientist to test how people use databases and was never designed to be an accurate repository. DrKay (talk) 20:24, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:39, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. YorkshireLad (talk) 01:01, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. YorkshireLad (talk) 01:03, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I was thinking the same when I looked at it a couple of days ago. There is not a single WP:RS for the whole thing, and WP:NOTGENEALOGY. For the main listings, it just duplicates what is, or should be, on the pages for the individual dukedoms created for his sons, while the list of others at the end is pretty random, and even if it can be documented, I am not sure a collection pages of people descended from (fill in the blank) is really encyclopedic, as opposed to just a trivial curiosity. Agricolae (talk) 01:18, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Firstly, this is a horrifically confusing mess of an article which doesn't even follow it's own scope. The article is defined as descendants of Charles II, but it could more accurately be described as "some male line descendants who held peerages (kind of)". It's not clear what the purpose of the article actually is, and it's likely because it's not following a well structured reliable source. Secondly, although a certain amount of genealogy is to be expected (encouraged even), when dealing with monarchs this article strays too far into the
  Grandchildren of Queen Victoria and Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, which has a very clear defined scope with purpose. While I definitely think this article meets the criteria for deletion, I would be interested to see a similar article with a much narrower and purposeful scope, such as Illegitimate children of Charles II be created. Editing with Eric (talk) 13:09, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - I agree fully with the comments above. What the article includes is rather random and heavily duplicated. Dunarc (talk) 20:58, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There's
  nothing irredeemably bad about this article. It has some synthesis, but soucres from other articles can be added. It would be a great pity to lose all of this information and formatting. Can it be userfied? Bearian (talk) 21:47, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep -- Charles II notably had not legitimate children so that his brother inherited the throne. However he had a considerable number of illegitimate children, some of whom were granted titles of nobility and others married into the nobility. This potentially a notable subject. Unless we already have a page doing much the same thing, I see not reason why we should not keep it. I would have preferred it not to have the thumbnail portraits which tend to clutter the article, but this seems to be in vogue. One thin that may be wrong is that it thought that Prince Charles was also descended from Charles II, though the late Queen Mother. No objection to some pruning, Peterkingiron (talk) 18:03, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:10, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Agricolae. The list falls under
  WP:SYNTHESIS. If a RS did happen to discuss this subject it might be better suited as a subsection of Charles II of England. -M.Nelson (talk) 15:07, 22 March 2020 (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.