Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Line of succession to James I

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. Sandstein 23:38, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Line of succession to James I

Unencyclopedic article, see talk. PatGallacher (talk) 02:39, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a precedent where we deleted a similar article recently, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Line of succession to Henry VIII. PatGallacher (talk) 02:41, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see a merge was suggested on the talk page--perhaps that might be a good idea. DGG (talk) 03:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It depends what you mean by a merge. To my mind that could mean copying most of the content of this article into the main James I article, which I would oppose. I am not in princple against the James I article saying something about the succession to him at some points during this reign, but I question whether there should be a list of anything like this length, since you get into problems with e.g. accuracy, original research, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. When we had the similar discussion before with Henry VIII the "merge" option was considered but replaced by a straight "delete". PatGallacher (talk) 13:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Useful and legitimate set index article. Needs sources, though. --Elliskev 14:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- On second thought, "possible successor of..." may not be a legitimate type. So, no preference --Elliskev 14:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've just had a look, I don't think this is a set index article. As you say, needs sources, but I doubt if you can find sources to back this article up. PatGallacher (talk) 17:33, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. I think I was stretching a bit with the "set index" thing. --Elliskev 17:51, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 00:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, StarM 01:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No opinion on deletion or not, but if this is kept, it should specify "James VI of Scotland": concentrating rather on Scottish succession than to the English throne. But anyway, "James I" could refer to at least eight different guys, so we need to specify which one he is. Nyttend (talk) 05:05, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, expand and Rename line of succession to the Scottish throne per line of succession to the British throne--ZayZayEM (talk) 05:43, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not the same as line of succession to the Scottish throne - this article simply claims to show who the heirs of James I/VI were upon his death. You'd have to have one such list for every monarch, and it strikes me as a pretty indiscriminate collection of information, as well as being hard to source and verify. The succession to the Scottish throne is covered by the list of Scottish monarchs down to 1688 (as the two kingdoms were separate but in personal union after the accession of James I in 1603); latterly, the articles on Jacobitism cover the putative de jure successors, while those for English and British monarchs cover the de facto line. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:57, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As AlexT correctly points out, this isn't a line of descendants, but rather the names of 15 persons who were alive at the time of a particular monarch's death. King Charles I did succeed to the throne, and if he had not been able to serve at that time, there was his sister, followed by her six children. I'm not sure where the others come in, but this became a moot point after Charles I started siring children. The American equivalent is to note that the Secretary of ______ would become acting president if ___ other people died in a common event. Absent a "King Ralph" type of disaster, being third or beyond in line isn't of even academic interest. If one wants to mention, in the article about Prince Maurice von Simmern that he was 6th in line in 1625, that's a somewhat interesting bit of trivia. Mandsford (talk) 21:23, 10 November 2008 (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.