Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Endogamy in the British monarchy

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. per Engleham's comment. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 ^talk 02:30, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Endogamy in the British monarchy

Endogamy in the British monarchy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

The article is a list of all the marriages of British kings and queens and the degree of blood relationship of the spouses. There are no reliable sources that talk about "endogamy in the British monarchy", and the sourceable content is already covered in articles such as Royal intermarriage, and where the relationship is individually significant, in the individuals' articles. Therefore this page is an original theory that cannot be attributed to reliable sources, and since there is no similar coverage in reliable sources the article also fails to meet the notability guideline. Celia Homeford (talk) 10:05, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 12:44, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per Celia. The great majority of people (royal and non-royal) marry within a social group... Firebrace (talk) 16:02, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep well sourced article with multiple RS that talk about "endogamy in the British monarchy", clears GNG LavaBaron (talk) 04:12, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The article is not well-sourced nor does it have multiple reliable sources. In fact, there are no sources for "endogamy in the British monarchy". This appears to be a joke vote that is overspill from other disputes at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Education of the British Royal Family and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:LavaBaron reported by User:Firebrace (Result: Warned). Celia Homeford (talk) 09:13, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:15, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Pernom. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 08:31, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I disagree that the concept of intermarriage in British monarchy can be generalized nto a general article. The intermarriage specific to Britaim is not reciprocated in mostother monarchies and not even in Europe. Furthermore, such relations were an import signifier of their status among several elite families such as ancient Egypt and Britain falls within that category. It is sufficiently important, especially as research on the topic from google scholar really seems to be kicking of concurrently. British endogomy is among the most well recorded, so this article is highly valuable. I also wish that we consider that our sources use a wide range of terminology such as inbreeding, exogamy, cousincest as well as various sum of parts that may skew search returns so keep that in mind when you wrongfully consider this article to be uncovered in reliable sources. Considering that the legacy of this form of thinking continues to affect Brits to this day through the the class system I feel like trivializing this concept means a disservice to Wikipedia since it is highly encyclopedic as well as relevant to this day. Hawaan12 (talk) 15:53, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Yes it's an minor topic, but Wikipedia allows unlimited articles, and for those who take an interest in royal genealogy it would of great interest and informative. A helluva lot of work has gone into putting it together, and I think its deletion would be a loss. The question to be asked in such cases: would the article be of value to those have an interest in the topic. The obvious answer here is yes. Engleham (talk) 04:31, 29 April 2016 (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.