Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Descendants of James VI and 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:41, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Descendants of James VI and I

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTGENEALOGY: Wikipedia is not a directory of genealogical entries. I fail to see the context behind this topic. James is not known for being the great-great-great-grandfather of, say, Louis XV of France, nor is Louis notable for being James's great-great-great-grandson. The link between James and the reigning monarchs of Spain, Sweden, Belgium, Luxembourg, Norway, Denmark, and the Netherlands is also not notable, as evidenced by the lack of reliable sources pointing out the link. Surtsicna (talk) 11:51, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 11:51, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 11:51, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I know it meets WP:NOTABLE and WP:GNG. Family descendants of a famous person are usually notable. –Cupper52^Discuss! 12:01, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How exactly do you know that? Family of a famous person are explicitly not inherently notable. Please see WP:INVALIDBIO. Surtsicna (talk) 14:28, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The individuals are notable. The topic itself is not. DrKay (talk) 22:37, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agree with nom and DrKay. ww2censor (talk) 11:56, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Family of notable people in history are not, themselves, inherently notable. Therefore, unless each person in this list received SIGCOV in independent and reliable sources outside of their connection to those they descended from then they do not pass the basic notability requirements laid out in WP:N. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 15:47, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is an inhernt violation of not genealogy guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:14, 11 January 2021 (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.