Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Commonwealth realm monarchies

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 per WP:SNOW, talk page will be moved into a subpage of Commonwealth realms, page will be redirected to Commonwealth realms. Avec nat...Wikipédia Prends Des Forces. 03:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commonwealth realm monarchies[edit]

Article not needed could all relevant infomation could easily be included in the Commonwealth realm article --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 02:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support this was the case originally; however a separate section of Commonwealth realm will need be created for the dablinks at the head of each monarchy article to direct to. --G2bambino (talk) 03:22, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There already is a section Current Commonwealth realms. --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 03:52, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't make out for sure whether you support keeping the article or support deleting it. Please use one or the other of the conventional "keep" or "delete". -- Lonewolf BC (talk) 00:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

G2 supports deletion, his opion would be Delete. GoodDay (talk) 01:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. GoodDay (talk) 02:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article is unecessary; it replicates info at Commonwealth realm. It is founded on a nuance between 'realm' and 'monarchy' which serves no useful purpose. It is not user friendly. The Windsor monarchy is already treated as multiple monarchies in other articles, such as Commonwealth realm.--Gazzster (talk) 08:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per the many comments above.--UpDown (talk) 17:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This page was a really bad idea to begin with. It serves no useful purpose whatsoever to a reader seeking knowledge in an encylcopedia, whereas it is altogether redundant from that viewpoint. It was created mostly if not solely to help quiet a dispute among editors, about the dablink used on the articles on the "national monarchies" of the Commonwealth realms. I still can scarcely believe that this silly redundant page was created just because people could not otherwise agree on line in a dablink.
If the article is deleted, some discussions from its talkpage will need preserving because they bear on other articles. Transferring them to Talk:Commonwealth realm seems a sensible way to do that. (I warned against holding omnibus discussion here, at the time, for exactly this reason.) -- Lonewolf BC (talk) 00:24, 26 November 2007
Delete although it is attractively formatted. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 00:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Bduke (talk) 00:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This is not a good idea.--Bduke (talk) 00:59, 26 November 2007 (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.