557:
cleanup, no doubt. However, as far as the overall relevance is concerned, one may ask a very general question: 'Are peoples' lists relevant at all? What do they tell us?' And as far as unsourced information is concerned, that's a general problem in
Knowledge. There are many articles with a higher amount of unsourced information here, after all this is only a list that connects existing Knowledge articles. It doesnt't make assumptions, it merely connects existing Knowledge biographies. So if anyone really doubts a particular entry (or needs a citation), it is still possible to do some research on this, by using google or the printed Who is Who. This article is, at present, a first starting point for further research, nothing more. Summing up, if you desperately wish to delete this list because its existence annoys you so much, go for it - I just don't see a reason why this should be necessary. I think there are article candidates where this is more urgent. Good cleanup and refined rules for inclusion of names yes, but deletion no.
735:
inherently notable." First, the latter is simply false. There are many peers who don't have articles and may never have them because the only noteworthy thing about them is their peerage. More to the point, this isn't about the notability of nobles. Rather, it is about the notability of a subset of them. Can someone point to the source of notability of peers-in-their-own-right being married to one another? Where has this ever been listed or discussed in a reliable source outside of
Knowledge? -
218:. It is not clear why a list of couples meeting this very peculiar description is of interest to anybody, or why these couples are more noteworthy than the couples composed of people who hold titles not in their own right, or no titles at all. More importantly, the article provides no indication that any reliable source outside of Knowledge has ever taken an interest in this topic or composed such a list: this list is almost entirely unsourced despite containing many
532:. If it has not be been published anywhere except within Knowledge, there is no evidence that it is verifiable, let alone notable. To demonstrate that this topic was not created based on editor's own whim, a verifiable definition is needed to provide external validation that this list complies with
556:
The list started to give an overview of a particular social phenomenon. Adding people with multiple honours (peerages AND titles derived from orders of knighthood) has resulted in the article becoming difficult to read and - as other users rightly remarked - bordering on trivia. It requires a good
734:
I hope you don't mind, but I find that position very frustrating. How are those favouring deletion ever supposed to prove it is not notable. In fairness, it is those who want to keep it who should explain why it's notable. So far, all we're getting is "I think it's interesting" and "nobility is
183:
111:
106:
115:
401:
All the people listed have their own
Knowledge articles, so are notable by Knowledge standards. A list of everyone with a title would be encyclopedic, and listing those who married others with such titles, is fine as well.
98:
677:
Yes, 2 X 2 = 4 is not OR, but as far as I understand such things aristocratic titulature (and whether it's derived or independent) is a bit more complicated than that and therefore does require reliable sourcing.
797:
The list interests me and I don't think the description is really so peculiar. Holding titles itself fulfils the notability requirement and the relationship is of public interest. If you disagree, go and delete
177:
48:. The arguments for retention were not as strong as those for deletion. While the delete side asserted that the scope and choice of topic of the list were inappropriate, most of the keep arguments were
524:
as this list topic or a definition for this list appears to have not been published anywhere else other than
Knowledge, as it does not have a verifiable definition and contravenes the prohibition on
338:
Why it's of interest to some people is unimportant—clearly it is, otherwise it wouldn't have been created. In any event, the nominator is right that the article does not appear to be notable. -
753:
is not considered a valid argument in such discussions. What matters, in terms of policy, is that this is an unsourced, user-compiled list of mostly living people, which violates the policies
657:
trivia is in the eye of the beholder. This is a topic in which there is reasonable interest and it can be compiled accurately; 2 X 2 =4 is not OR. That is sufficient justification for a list.
891:
I agree that "being interesting" is not a ground for writing or keeping an article on
Knowledge, nor did I use that as a justification. I simply said the "no" side had not yet convinced me.
702:
I did not create the list, but I did add to it as best I could. I am not that attached to it, but none of the delete votes, to date, have yet convinced me that the list is non-notable.
143:
297:
271:
198:
165:
138:
962:
943:
914:
900:
864:
843:
829:
811:
781:
744:
729:
711:
690:
668:
649:
632:
610:
583:
566:
548:
516:
485:
457:
425:
389:
364:
347:
330:
312:
286:
260:
234:
80:
245:
159:
155:
102:
205:
94:
86:
74:
545:
171:
17:
954:
Knowledge is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This absolutely arbitrary aggregation of facts is exactly that.
817:
799:
511:
452:
373:
This does not address that it's unsourced. And how could such a list be relevant to any field of study? Knowledge is not the
462:
All nobility is notable, by
Knowledge standards, and if any didn't have an article already, they could easily be given one.
910:
896:
839:
725:
707:
905:
Just to add re noteworthiness -- almost all the entries had articles in their own right and there were no red-links.
977:
435:
36:
976:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
906:
892:
835:
721:
703:
69:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
541:
717:
326:
430:
We can't really assume notability by
Knowledge standers simply because they are included on Knowledge.
959:
53:
57:
821:
645:
558:
191:
64:
61:
825:
807:
562:
537:
507:
448:
308:
282:
256:
938:
750:
627:
606:
360:
322:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
955:
593:
533:
529:
463:
403:
49:
885:
740:
579:
343:
355:- I think our core constituents (college and high school students) could use this list.
855:
772:
681:
641:
380:
225:
849:
803:
762:
754:
664:
525:
499:
440:
431:
304:
278:
252:
219:
215:
934:
623:
602:
356:
132:
852:: Just because we have many bad articles does not mean we should keep this one.
766:
758:
720:
did a great deal of work, yeoman work at that. I hope he will add his opinion.
321:
Does seem rather limited in scope and no reason to assume that this is notable.
881:
736:
575:
374:
339:
659:
834:
Good point too, I also gotta admit. Give credit where credit's due.
596:
to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
970:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
128:
124:
120:
190:
95:
List of couples with
British titles in their own right
87:
List of couples with
British titles in their own right
298:
list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions
601:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
272:
list of United
Kingdom-related deletion discussions
820:first before deleting the list about real people!
802:first before deleting the list about real people.
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
980:). No further edits should be made to this page.
880:per my response to Rms125a@hotmail.com, above. -
204:
8:
432:Inclusion is not a indication of notability
816:Very good point, thank you. Go and delete
749:Rms125a@hotmail.com, please consider that
292:
266:
246:list of Lists-related deletion discussions
240:
56:, not convinced by delete !voters (how?),
296:: This debate has been included in the
270:: This debate has been included in the
244:: This debate has been included in the
497:This seems to border onto trivia. --
7:
434:, we don't create articles because
640:Amusing for trivia purposes only.
574:. Arbitrary list. Pointless list.
24:
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
956:Chris Cunningham (not at work)
818:List of fictional supercouples
800:List of fictional supercouples
1:
997:
848:Not really, I think. See
765:as well as the guideline
973:Please do not modify it.
963:16:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
944:23:37, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
932:How is that relevant? --
915:19:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
901:18:54, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
865:21:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
844:21:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
830:20:50, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
812:20:29, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
782:21:44, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
745:23:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
730:14:34, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
712:14:31, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
691:21:48, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
669:05:31, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
81:02:43, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
32:Please do not modify it.
650:22:20, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
633:00:27, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
611:00:15, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
584:19:13, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
567:08:04, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
549:08:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
517:20:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
486:05:17, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
458:20:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
426:16:22, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
390:18:35, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
365:18:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
348:01:06, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
331:21:00, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
313:17:54, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
287:17:54, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
261:17:53, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
235:17:12, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
718:User:Andrei Iosifovich
216:WP:SAL#Lists of people
436:other articles exist
907:Rms125a@hotmail.com
893:Rms125a@hotmail.com
836:Rms125a@hotmail.com
722:Rms125a@hotmail.com
704:Rms125a@hotmail.com
528:as illustrated by
44:The result was
863:
780:
716:Just to add that
689:
613:
526:original research
388:
315:
301:
289:
275:
263:
249:
233:
988:
975:
942:
862:
860:
853:
779:
777:
770:
688:
686:
679:
631:
600:
598:
502:
482:
479:
476:
473:
470:
467:
443:
422:
419:
416:
413:
410:
407:
387:
385:
378:
302:
276:
250:
232:
230:
223:
214:This page fails
209:
208:
194:
146:
136:
118:
77:
72:
67:
34:
996:
995:
991:
990:
989:
987:
986:
985:
984:
978:deletion review
971:
933:
856:
854:
773:
771:
682:
680:
622:
591:
500:
480:
477:
474:
471:
468:
465:
441:
420:
417:
414:
411:
408:
405:
381:
379:
226:
224:
151:
142:
109:
93:
90:
75:
70:
65:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
994:
992:
983:
982:
966:
965:
951:
950:
949:
948:
947:
946:
922:
921:
920:
919:
918:
917:
874:
873:
872:
871:
870:
869:
868:
867:
791:
790:
789:
788:
787:
786:
785:
784:
696:
695:
694:
693:
672:
671:
652:
635:
615:
614:
599:
588:
587:
586:
569:
551:
534:content policy
519:
492:
491:
490:
489:
488:
395:
394:
393:
392:
368:
367:
350:
333:
316:
290:
264:
212:
211:
148:
144:AfD statistics
89:
84:
54:WP:INTERESTING
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
993:
981:
979:
974:
968:
967:
964:
961:
957:
953:
952:
945:
940:
936:
931:
928:
927:
926:
925:
924:
923:
916:
912:
908:
904:
903:
902:
898:
894:
890:
889:
887:
883:
879:
876:
875:
866:
861:
859:
851:
847:
846:
845:
841:
837:
833:
832:
831:
827:
823:
819:
815:
814:
813:
809:
805:
801:
796:
793:
792:
783:
778:
776:
768:
764:
760:
756:
752:
748:
747:
746:
742:
738:
733:
732:
731:
727:
723:
719:
715:
714:
713:
709:
705:
701:
698:
697:
692:
687:
685:
676:
675:
674:
673:
670:
666:
662:
661:
656:
653:
651:
647:
643:
639:
636:
634:
629:
625:
621:per Szzuk, --
620:
617:
616:
612:
608:
604:
597:
595:
590:
589:
585:
581:
577:
573:
570:
568:
564:
560:
555:
552:
550:
547:
543:
539:
538:Gavin Collins
535:
531:
527:
523:
520:
518:
515:
513:
509:
504:
503:
496:
493:
487:
484:
483:
461:
460:
459:
456:
454:
450:
445:
444:
437:
433:
429:
428:
427:
424:
423:
400:
397:
396:
391:
386:
384:
376:
372:
371:
370:
369:
366:
362:
358:
354:
351:
349:
345:
341:
337:
334:
332:
328:
324:
320:
317:
314:
310:
306:
299:
295:
291:
288:
284:
280:
273:
269:
265:
262:
258:
254:
247:
243:
239:
238:
237:
236:
231:
229:
221:
217:
207:
203:
200:
197:
193:
189:
185:
182:
179:
176:
173:
170:
167:
164:
161:
157:
154:
153:Find sources:
149:
145:
140:
134:
130:
126:
122:
117:
113:
108:
104:
100:
96:
92:
91:
88:
85:
83:
82:
78:
73:
68:
63:
59:
58:WP:OTHERSTUFF
55:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
972:
969:
929:
877:
857:
794:
774:
699:
683:
658:
654:
637:
618:
592:
571:
553:
521:
505:
498:
494:
464:
446:
439:
404:
398:
382:
352:
335:
323:Slatersteven
318:
293:
267:
241:
227:
213:
201:
195:
187:
180:
174:
168:
162:
152:
45:
43:
31:
28:
178:free images
858:Sandstein
775:Sandstein
751:WP:ILIKEIT
684:Sandstein
383:Sandstein
228:Sandstein
642:Joal Beal
546:contribs)
530:WP:MADEUP
375:Who's Who
50:WP:USEFUL
930:Question
822:ViennaUK
804:Da Vynci
594:Relisted
559:ViennaUK
501:Kraftlos
442:Kraftlos
305:Darkwind
279:Darkwind
253:Darkwind
139:View log
935:Nuujinn
624:Nuujinn
603:Shimeru
512:Contrib
453:Contrib
357:Bearian
220:WP:BLPs
184:WP refs
172:scholar
112:protect
107:history
62:King of
60:, etc.
878:Delete
850:WP:WAX
763:WP:BLP
755:WP:NOR
638:Delete
619:Delete
572:Delete
522:Delete
495:Delete
336:Delete
319:Delete
156:Google
116:delete
46:delete
882:Rrius
737:Rrius
700:Keep:
665:talk
576:Szzuk
481:Focus
438:. --
421:Focus
340:Rrius
303:-- --
277:-- --
251:-- --
199:JSTOR
160:books
133:views
125:watch
121:links
16:<
960:talk
939:talk
911:talk
897:talk
886:talk
840:talk
826:talk
808:talk
795:Keep
767:WP:N
761:and
759:WP:V
741:talk
726:talk
708:talk
655:Keep
646:talk
628:talk
607:talk
580:talk
563:talk
554:Keep
542:talk
536:. --
508:Talk
449:Talk
399:Keep
361:talk
353:Keep
344:talk
327:talk
309:talk
294:Note
283:talk
268:Note
257:talk
242:Note
192:FENS
166:news
129:logs
103:talk
99:edit
660:DGG
206:TWL
141:•
137:– (
958:-
913:)
899:)
888:)
842:)
828:)
810:)
769:.
757:,
743:)
728:)
710:)
667:)
648:)
609:)
582:)
565:)
510:|
451:|
377:.
363:)
346:)
329:)
311:)
300:.
285:)
274:.
259:)
248:.
222:.
186:)
131:|
127:|
123:|
119:|
114:|
110:|
105:|
101:|
79:♠
52:,
941:)
937:(
909:(
895:(
884:(
838:(
824:(
806:(
739:(
724:(
706:(
663:(
644:(
630:)
626:(
605:(
578:(
561:(
544:|
540:(
514:)
506:(
478:m
475:a
472:e
469:r
466:D
455:)
447:(
418:m
415:a
412:e
409:r
406:D
359:(
342:(
325:(
307:(
281:(
255:(
210:)
202:·
196:·
188:·
181:·
175:·
169:·
163:·
158:(
150:(
147:)
135:)
97:(
76:♣
71:♦
66:♥
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.