Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genealogical relationships of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom

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. MBisanz ^talk 04:47, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Genealogical relationships of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom

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

The article states "Many genealogical relationships may be found between the Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom, and between the Prime Ministers and other significant historical figures." From my searches this does not appear to be a topic meeting our criteria for notability. Can I ask that !voters please try to show whether or not it meets these criteria? Dougweller (talk) 06:44, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Dougweller (talk) 06:37, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The matter is discussed in detail in Paul Bloomfield's Uncommon People — a study of England's elite. Warden (talk) 11:54, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced. The book is as it says a study of Britain's elite, which of course includes prime ministers but I don't think that's enough.[1]. The book seems to have had little or no impact - Google Books turns up a few books which list it but don't seem to discuss it, a search on "Paul Bloomfield" and "Prime ministers" turns up nothing, so it's not even clear that it's a reliable source. Dougweller (talk) 18:54, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When considering notability, sources are not themselves required to be notable as that would cause an infinite recursion. Warden (talk) 20:03, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say notable. I said this book seems to have had little or no impact. Restaurants get deleted when the only reviews are in minor local papers, for instance. And I'd argue that it is dubious as a reliable source. The GNG says "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". You haven't shown plural sources for a start. You haven't shown that it directly addresses the topic - it may well do so, but a quote mentioning relationships between prime ministers would be helpful. Please give more details of what's in the book. Dougweller (talk) 06:04, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The impact of the book is immaterial, as it was published reputably and therefore can be assumed to be a reliable source. 1955 is a bit dated but usable if only to substantiate notability. More details of the contents would be desirable, but I'm sure the Colonel can provide them. Claritas § 18:24, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know where this comes from. I am looking at Bloomfield's Uncommon People and it is not about the genealogical relationships of Prime Ministers, at all. He has chapters that deal generically with heredity and family, and then dives into biographies of a few 17th and 18th century men whose descendants have had a disproportionate contribution to British elite society. These include George Villiers, Robert Barclay, Josiah Wedgewood, an extended Strachey-Pattle-Stephen kindred, William Cecil, and a Penrose-Arnold-Macauley-Trevelyan kindred. He discusses descent to writers, scientists, musicians, economists, Lords, school principals, College Fellows, and yes, Prime Ministers too. To say that this discusses the genealogical relationships of Prime Ministers in detail is simply untrue. It mentions some Prime Ministers along with the eugenicist and the Police Constable, but it is certainly not a detailed study of how Prime Ministers are related to each other. Agricolae (talk) 05:19, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Warden. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:34, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Just as the degree to which the American Presidents are related to each other is in fact nothing more than a generic indication of how the populations from which they have come, as a whole, are related, the same seems to apply here. This really just represents the inbred nature of British elite society, using Prime Ministers as a proxy for the whole. What it comes down to is whether it is notable specifically with respect to this group, Prime Ministers, and it doesn't look so to me. Yes, a book about the Prime Ministers points to this random curiosity that a lot of them are descended from one guy, but unless there has been some focused study specifically on this issue (and not just as part of a larger evaluation of the whole societal class), then this seems nothing but a bit of pub trivia. It looks like its got an indecent bit of OR too.Agricolae (talk) 05:19, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - many readers such as myself find this interesting. Wikipedia must be running out of paper as more and more articles keep heading for the cyberspace shredder.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:02, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What's the issue? This is a much-discussed topic, particularly regarding the Cecils.--Collingwood (talk) 12:44, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I haven't decided how to vote yet, but I think the keep votes are less than convincing so far. If this topic is much-discussed for the Cecils, can we see a source that discusses it for the Cecils? Yes, many readers are likely to find this interesting, but that's not the issue here -- notability is the issue. The one source cited here, Bloomfield, has been reviewed by Agricolae and found not to focus on this topic, and in any case the GNG generally requires multiple sources, not just one. Are there other sources to demonstrate notability? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:31, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Yes, I really would appreciate it if !votes were based on policy issues rather than on whether they like it or not. I specifically asked for that in my nomination - perhaps people aren't even reading why it was nominated? Dougweller (talk) 13:34, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  Have now switched to delete, below. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:39, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree, it's a fascinating topic, but it's inadequately sourced here. As per nom, I don't see the multiple sources we would need to show that the subject is notable - some of the facts are sourced (though not sure about the reliability of the sources), and that's good as far as it goes, but confirming facts is not the same as showing why the facts are important or notable. I'm also concerned about synthesis, though that could easily be fixed with more sourcing - as it stands, the sources present could not possibly account for all of the facts in the article. And if they do, that is its own problem. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 16:05, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for my same (losing) arguments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genealogical relationships of Presidents of the United States. Good sourcing ipso facto leads to notability. Bearian (talk) 17:39, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only source proposed appears from Agricolae's review not to support notability. I agree with Bearian that good sourcing would imply notability, but there is no good sourcing at present so I don't follow Bearian's logic. The keep !votes generally don't seem policy-based to me. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:39, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - both as on a non-notable topic and as a morass of original research, synthesis and poor sourcing. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:45, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete The presentation of this is much better than that of the US presidents' version, and the degree of relationships documented is less obviously tenuous. That said, I would agree that it's verging on "pub trivia", and the sourcing appears to be spotty at best. Mangoe (talk) 19:56, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notability but a lot of original research. --Phazakerley (talk) 19:11, 14 December 2012 (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.