Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Descendants of Queen Victoria and King Christian IX

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. Sandstein (talk) 13:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Descendants of Queen Victoria and King Christian IX[edit]

A violation of WP:IINFO, in that the "article" is merely an overwhelming series of royals, whose only tenuous link is one of two common ancestors, and of WP:SYN, because no third-party references have been provided to establish the notability of the multitude of descendants had by Queen Victoria and King Christian IX. Biruitorul (talk) 05:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article highlights the closest familial relationship between six of the seven monarchs of Europe today, a link that can hardly be called tenuous. As for the common ancestors, Queen Victoria and King Christian IX were known as the grandmother of Europe and father-in-law of Europe respectively. This article demonstrates the reasoning behind these nicknames. The close familial ties between the courts of Europe during the First World War are often referenced, but never usually fully examined, and this article provides a thorough analysis. The family trees help to highlight the familial relationships discussed in other articles such as Royal Intermarriage, Victoria of the United Kingdom and Christian IX of Denmark. This article could perhaps use some more details about the royals included emphasizing the importance of their relationship between each other but completely deleting it seems a bit extreme. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.150.233.137 (talk) 07:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No. What the article needs is proof, in the form of cited sources, that this idea isn't a novel theory that you have invented yourself. Thus far, it has none at all. Theories are not acceptable here without such proof. Uncle G (talk) 13:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f52/september-2007-newsletter-queen-victoria-king-christian-s-descendants-13484.html a valid source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.150.233.137 (talk) 15:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's a self-published source. Biruitorul (talk) 22:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So then for the same reason should the following articles also be deleted:

Descent of Elizabeth II from William I
Descent of Elizabeth II from Cerdic
Genealogy of the British Royal Family —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.150.233.137 (talk) 00:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Do see WP:WAX, and focus on the current article. Forums are not reliable sources. Moreover, those articles focus on one individual each; there's no evidence these two should be linked together. Biruitorul (talk) 03:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Divide Descendants of each of them is a suitable separate topic, and not OR. The sources given in the article are reliable enough for that. DGG (talk) 10:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do either of these quotations from Wikipedia help bring the two individuals together?

The great dynastical success of the six children, was to a great extent not the accomplishment of Christian IX himself, but due to Louise's dynastic ambitions. Some have compared her dynastic capabilities with the ones of Queen Victoria of the United Kingdom
- Louise of Hesse-Kassel and Christian IX of Denmark

In early twentieth century Europe, the grandchildren of Queen Victoria and King Christian IX were prevalent throughout most of Europe's royal courts
- Royal intermarriage

Keep - the endogamy of European royalty is well-known. Whatever the objections to the citation of a newsletter, there are four books cited, which is quite good enough. I would oppose split, as I suspect this would merely produce repetition. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:26, 23 December 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.