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. Daniel 04:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of monarchs in the British Isles[edit]

List of monarchs in the British Isles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This list is now redundant on Wikipedia. The monarchs it covers, specifically English and Scottish ones are both in their own, better articles. It is also entirely unreferenced and confusing, and frankly a complete mess. Majorly (talk) 16:51, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that it's a mess, and misleading mess at that, but rather than taking it out and shooting it, I'd suggest renaming and repurposing it. Move it to Lists of monarchs in Britain and Ireland and use it as a list of lists page. There are a an awful lot of B&I monarchs lists and a consolidated superlist in one place would be no bad thing. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, simply too much information to throwaway (agreeing with 'Angus McLellan'). GoodDay 17:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The information is all available in other lists. Majorly (talk) 17:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I know; but this article offers in (near) completeness the 'evolution' of the monarchies of the British Isles into a single monarchy (ie British monarchy). Sorta ties all those articles together. GoodDay 17:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose; User:Majorly has not supplied sufficient information as to what would replace the article, poor as it is. Could do with a reorg along the lines of what User:Angusmclellan suggests, but deletion wouldn't help at all. –EdC 17:37, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: the large number of iws (32!) suggests that this is certainly not a redundant article. What would the reverse iw be if this article was deleted? –EdC 17:41, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Interwikis are irrelevant. They are articles that aren't the same subject as this one. And are probably better, more accurate and complete. Majorly (talk) 23:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I understand the reasoning, but it's important to have a single timeline. Deb 17:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If there are redundant pages, something somewhere should be deleted. MarkBul 17:40, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Replying to some of the points raised, what would replace the article is a List of monarchs of the United Kingdoms, to be created from the post-1707 section of List of English monarchs. Some, probably most, of the existing redirects pointing to this page would be changed to point to that one. Interwiki counting is misleading: a lot of the links do point to equivalent articles, but bg:Крал на Обединено кралство Великобритания и Северна Ирландия covers monarchs of the UKofGB&[N]I, eo:Listo de britaj reĝoj is a List of English/UK rulers, I'm not sure what he:מלכי בריטניה is, the kawiki article is English/UK again, so is the Kernewek one, the Latin one is UK/GB, and I think you can guess what lt:Anglijos karaliai is about, and the Limburgs one only covers England/UK as well in spite of its title, so too the Nederlands, Polish, Serb, Suomi, and Chinese. The Swedish article is GB/UK again. Impressive stuff, not that the number of interwikis, or the confusion this one generates among interwikiers, are arguments for or against the existence of this article. As for Deb's timeline, I don't see one of those for Italy or Spain. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:37, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose:Keep (As you can see from my comments!) Rather than throw the baby out with the bath water, the article is the only one that actually documents the monarchs of the peoples of these islands. Yes it needs some work done on it but the content needs saving in one all encompassing article - lets improve it, not ditch it. --Bill Reid | Talk 19:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep in concurrence with above DBD 19:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep well laid out plan and map to help give meaning to the other lists and how they fit in two the whole, without this page you can look at those individual lists and not immediately know how the whole works together,KTo288 21:02, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment What's with all the votes saying "oppose" instead of "keep"? Atropos 21:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My misake (meant to put Keep). GoodDay 23:41, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The article is simply wrong. It should, in order to live up to it's title, show the Irish and Welsh monarchies as well, and show the various rulers of the Heptarchy in parallel, in addition to all the early kingdoms in Scotland, Wales, and Ireland. This is clearly impossible, so needs scrapping in its present form. It should be a list of links to other lists. TharkunColl 22:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree, but the solution is to expand the article not delete it.KTo288 09:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Those who oppose 'deleting' this article should vote Keep; those who support deletion vote Delete GoodDay 23:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Agree with GoodDay and Angus McLellan. Links can be added to what TharkunColl suggest is missing. --Bduke 00:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep - very useful -- Roleplayer 01:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Well-defined global list that complements the other lists. It needs a cleanup not a deletion. Capitalistroadster 02:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, Should probably include the Irish kings but definitely a good use of lists. Very encylopedic. Ealdgyth | Talk 02:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Yep, Irish monarchs belong, so do the Welsh rulers (the indepenant Princes of Wales). GoodDay 17:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This seems to be an excellent article. If it has problems, one of the wikiprojects should take it under it's wing to iron them out. It's certainly not the kind of thing we ought to be deleting. AndyJones 12:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as it follows the guidelines in WP:LIST, as useful, adding links, encyclopedic, and verifiable and notable in its own right. Bearian 00:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep For all its quirks, this list is more clear and accurate than either of the separate lists of Scottish and English monarchs; together they put forward the idea that the Scottish monarchy ceased to exist in 1707, while the English monarchy continues today. This list more clearly - and correctly - traces the evolution of two monarchies into one. --G2bambino 19:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I concur with the comment preceding mine. This page is, however, in need of reworking so let's try and improve its quality instead of scrapping it completely! --Caponer 21:00, 7 September 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.