- 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. Lord Roem ~ ( talk) 17:42, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
List of the mothers of Georgian monarchs
- List of the mothers of Georgian monarchs ( | 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 too trivial and unsourced. There is absolutely no need for such a list and we have no articles on the list of mothers of other monarchs or leaders for good reasons. The subject matter is just too trivial. The Emperor's New Spy ( talk) 23:26, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
- Keep The list needs no source as the monarchs in itself listed are sourced. And yes we have such lists like List of the mothers of the Ottoman Sultans and List of the mothers of the Safavid Shahs. Jaqeli ( talk) 23:35, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
- Both the listed case above are monarchies without consorts because their monarchs practiced polygamy and only had concubines thus only the mothers of Ottoman and Iranian rulers were given unique titles of Valide Sultan and Mahd-i Ulya. And both lists have sources stating their importance as stand alone articles. -- The Emperor's New Spy ( talk) 23:43, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
- That's not an argument. Many Georgian monarchs practiced polygamy if not the most of them. And sources are not a problem at all. The problem would be sourcing the list entirely as it would load the page way too much. The sources are found in the articles of monarchs who their mothers were so you can look there if you doubt any. Jaqeli ( talk) 23:47, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
- The biggest problem is the triviality of it all. Let others decide if you disagree.-- The Emperor's New Spy ( talk) 00:12, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:21, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:21, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - few of those listed are actually notable enough to have articles (many are actually linked to dynasties or family names). Those that are linked don't seem to be notable for having been the mothers of their respective sons. Rather, they are notable as the queens/wives/consorts of their son's fathers; the various monarchs that came before them. Almost all of those I sampled suggested notability on that basis with "and was also the mother of x" included as an afterthought. There's nothing to suggest these people were notable for this thing, such that a list like this is required. Why not a List of the sisters of Georgian monarchs? I'm sure a few were married off to monarchs of other kingdoms such that they might be notable in their own right and can be listed on an equally trivial basis. As TENS quite rightly points out, this is just nonsense. Stalwart 111 06:59, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- Comment Would be better to do family trees of Georgian monarchs which could include this information in a more conventional format. -- Colapeninsula ( talk) 09:37, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- Family trees already exist for Georgian monarchs.-- The Emperor's New Spy ( talk) 10:56, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 20:26, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep It is appropriate to have lists for people where there is not sufficient information to write an article, and that's what's being done here. The individual people on the list do not have to be notable--notability is not a concept that applies to article contents, just to the question of who should have a full individual article. DGG ( talk ) 05:24, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
- Anybody wanting to known the question: who are mothers of the Kings of Georgia can easily do this by clicking the articles of their sons on the list of monarchs article. Any informations about these people should go on the consort page (where your reasonings would be more justifiable), or the articles of their husbands and sons. There is nothing distinct or special about being mother of the Monarchs of Georgia, at least that history has given a care for. None of these individuals are recognized solely for being mothers of monarchs except the few women that are not famous for being wives and queens and only exist in brief genealogical mentioning, whose lives and deeds as queens history do not remember. Creating such a trivial list is not only ridiculous but can be considered original research. The next steps in triviality would be creating a list of sister, a list of brothers, a list of sons, a list of daughters, a list of dogs, a list of dolphins of Georgian monarchs.-- The Emperor's New Spy ( talk) 10:54, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
- Delete The arguments presented by The Emperor's New Spy are convincing enough. -- Why should I have a User Name? ( talk) 11:02, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per above. Essentially, if there are family trees, there is no new information that this article provides, as it otherwise does not meet any notability threshold. WP:OTHERSTUFF may apply to some of the above arguments as well ... Go Phightins ! 21:51, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Per
DGG argument.
68.109.175.166 (
talk) 02:28, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
- Sockpuppet of User:Jaqeli. Both are blocked.-- The Emperor's New Spy ( talk) 05:49, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr\ talk / 02:59, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep WP:IAR. There are a lot of solid policy reasons to delete this, I stared at the close/delete button closing this on at least three occasions. Two of the people opin'ing for keep are blocked right now per a previous ban and sockpuppetry. WP:LISTN isn't met. But as I started at this article, I couldn't bring myself to believe that it wouldn't be making the encyclopedia worse, and not better. I realize that that is a terrible argument, but it's what I've got. -- j⚛e decker talk 02:03, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- I do see this as a terrible argument no offense. It's not up to standards and I've seen many similar lists and articles deleted that would benefit Wikipedia more than this. It is just trivial and you can make a list of any relative really. The only such lists we allow are list of consorts or spouses of monarchs since they did enjoy the rank of queen and some had influence as queen, which most of these mothers were too. -- The Emperor's New Spy ( talk) 05:44, 28 June 2014 (UTC).
- No offense taken, I said myself "I realize that that is a terrible argument", and I meant it. I try and limit myself to very rare terrible arguments, but this is one. -- j⚛e decker talk 07:51, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep, per j⚛e decker, but I have a slightly different slant on his WP:IAP argument. As an encyclopedia, we suffer badly from Wikipedia:Recentism. We have articles (and arguments) about TV shows, third-rate football players who just got drafted, Pokemon cards, shopping malls whose most exciting attribute is that they have a Starbucks and a Sears, etc, etc, etc. That's all crap, but it gets to stay because somebody manages to dig up enough obscure citations to satisfy WP:N or one of its derivatives. The family history of royalty from 2500 years ago is the heart and soul of what an encyclopedia is all about. If nobody can point to a wiki-policy that says this article is a keeper, then we need better wiki-policies. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:32, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep per j⚛e decker and RoySmith. I have been lurking on this AfD since it first appeared and have been deeply conflicted. For the most part I was leaning towards deleting it on the legalistic grounds generally cited by those who want to get rid of it. But the above comments have changed my mind. In addition to the excellent points made by Roy, I will add another observation. Members of royal families, with a few admitted exceptions, should be notable. That's not to say that they should be given a pass the way we have with colleges and high schools. But rather that members of royal families almost always will have enough sources around somewhere to ring the notability bell. Which brings us to the bias problem mentioned by Roy. It's not just recentism, but also Western and Anglophone bias. If the subject of the list was the mothers of the Kings and Queens of England we would not be here right now. And that is most likely true of the other royal houses of Western Europe. There are tons of sources available in English and or other Western European languages that at least use the Latin Alphabet. Georgia however doesn't fall into those categories. It is a small country, geographically isolated from Western Europe and historically dominated by its larger northern neighbor, Russia. Again, enough sources almost certainly exist to satisfy GNG for members of royal familes. But, because of a lack of interest from scholars in the West, they are likely limited to Georgian and or Russian. Normally I dislike arguments favoring a presumption of sources, but in this case, I think common sense practically screams it. Does anyone really think that no one in Georgia and or Russia has written extensively on the biographies and lives of Georgian Royalty? - Ad Orientem ( talk) 14:03, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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. Lord Roem ~ ( talk) 17:42, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
List of the mothers of Georgian monarchs
- List of the mothers of Georgian monarchs ( | 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 too trivial and unsourced. There is absolutely no need for such a list and we have no articles on the list of mothers of other monarchs or leaders for good reasons. The subject matter is just too trivial. The Emperor's New Spy ( talk) 23:26, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
- Keep The list needs no source as the monarchs in itself listed are sourced. And yes we have such lists like List of the mothers of the Ottoman Sultans and List of the mothers of the Safavid Shahs. Jaqeli ( talk) 23:35, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
- Both the listed case above are monarchies without consorts because their monarchs practiced polygamy and only had concubines thus only the mothers of Ottoman and Iranian rulers were given unique titles of Valide Sultan and Mahd-i Ulya. And both lists have sources stating their importance as stand alone articles. -- The Emperor's New Spy ( talk) 23:43, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
- That's not an argument. Many Georgian monarchs practiced polygamy if not the most of them. And sources are not a problem at all. The problem would be sourcing the list entirely as it would load the page way too much. The sources are found in the articles of monarchs who their mothers were so you can look there if you doubt any. Jaqeli ( talk) 23:47, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
- The biggest problem is the triviality of it all. Let others decide if you disagree.-- The Emperor's New Spy ( talk) 00:12, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:21, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:21, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - few of those listed are actually notable enough to have articles (many are actually linked to dynasties or family names). Those that are linked don't seem to be notable for having been the mothers of their respective sons. Rather, they are notable as the queens/wives/consorts of their son's fathers; the various monarchs that came before them. Almost all of those I sampled suggested notability on that basis with "and was also the mother of x" included as an afterthought. There's nothing to suggest these people were notable for this thing, such that a list like this is required. Why not a List of the sisters of Georgian monarchs? I'm sure a few were married off to monarchs of other kingdoms such that they might be notable in their own right and can be listed on an equally trivial basis. As TENS quite rightly points out, this is just nonsense. Stalwart 111 06:59, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- Comment Would be better to do family trees of Georgian monarchs which could include this information in a more conventional format. -- Colapeninsula ( talk) 09:37, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- Family trees already exist for Georgian monarchs.-- The Emperor's New Spy ( talk) 10:56, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 20:26, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep It is appropriate to have lists for people where there is not sufficient information to write an article, and that's what's being done here. The individual people on the list do not have to be notable--notability is not a concept that applies to article contents, just to the question of who should have a full individual article. DGG ( talk ) 05:24, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
- Anybody wanting to known the question: who are mothers of the Kings of Georgia can easily do this by clicking the articles of their sons on the list of monarchs article. Any informations about these people should go on the consort page (where your reasonings would be more justifiable), or the articles of their husbands and sons. There is nothing distinct or special about being mother of the Monarchs of Georgia, at least that history has given a care for. None of these individuals are recognized solely for being mothers of monarchs except the few women that are not famous for being wives and queens and only exist in brief genealogical mentioning, whose lives and deeds as queens history do not remember. Creating such a trivial list is not only ridiculous but can be considered original research. The next steps in triviality would be creating a list of sister, a list of brothers, a list of sons, a list of daughters, a list of dogs, a list of dolphins of Georgian monarchs.-- The Emperor's New Spy ( talk) 10:54, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
- Delete The arguments presented by The Emperor's New Spy are convincing enough. -- Why should I have a User Name? ( talk) 11:02, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per above. Essentially, if there are family trees, there is no new information that this article provides, as it otherwise does not meet any notability threshold. WP:OTHERSTUFF may apply to some of the above arguments as well ... Go Phightins ! 21:51, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Per
DGG argument.
68.109.175.166 (
talk) 02:28, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
- Sockpuppet of User:Jaqeli. Both are blocked.-- The Emperor's New Spy ( talk) 05:49, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr\ talk / 02:59, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep WP:IAR. There are a lot of solid policy reasons to delete this, I stared at the close/delete button closing this on at least three occasions. Two of the people opin'ing for keep are blocked right now per a previous ban and sockpuppetry. WP:LISTN isn't met. But as I started at this article, I couldn't bring myself to believe that it wouldn't be making the encyclopedia worse, and not better. I realize that that is a terrible argument, but it's what I've got. -- j⚛e decker talk 02:03, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- I do see this as a terrible argument no offense. It's not up to standards and I've seen many similar lists and articles deleted that would benefit Wikipedia more than this. It is just trivial and you can make a list of any relative really. The only such lists we allow are list of consorts or spouses of monarchs since they did enjoy the rank of queen and some had influence as queen, which most of these mothers were too. -- The Emperor's New Spy ( talk) 05:44, 28 June 2014 (UTC).
- No offense taken, I said myself "I realize that that is a terrible argument", and I meant it. I try and limit myself to very rare terrible arguments, but this is one. -- j⚛e decker talk 07:51, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep, per j⚛e decker, but I have a slightly different slant on his WP:IAP argument. As an encyclopedia, we suffer badly from Wikipedia:Recentism. We have articles (and arguments) about TV shows, third-rate football players who just got drafted, Pokemon cards, shopping malls whose most exciting attribute is that they have a Starbucks and a Sears, etc, etc, etc. That's all crap, but it gets to stay because somebody manages to dig up enough obscure citations to satisfy WP:N or one of its derivatives. The family history of royalty from 2500 years ago is the heart and soul of what an encyclopedia is all about. If nobody can point to a wiki-policy that says this article is a keeper, then we need better wiki-policies. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:32, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep per j⚛e decker and RoySmith. I have been lurking on this AfD since it first appeared and have been deeply conflicted. For the most part I was leaning towards deleting it on the legalistic grounds generally cited by those who want to get rid of it. But the above comments have changed my mind. In addition to the excellent points made by Roy, I will add another observation. Members of royal families, with a few admitted exceptions, should be notable. That's not to say that they should be given a pass the way we have with colleges and high schools. But rather that members of royal families almost always will have enough sources around somewhere to ring the notability bell. Which brings us to the bias problem mentioned by Roy. It's not just recentism, but also Western and Anglophone bias. If the subject of the list was the mothers of the Kings and Queens of England we would not be here right now. And that is most likely true of the other royal houses of Western Europe. There are tons of sources available in English and or other Western European languages that at least use the Latin Alphabet. Georgia however doesn't fall into those categories. It is a small country, geographically isolated from Western Europe and historically dominated by its larger northern neighbor, Russia. Again, enough sources almost certainly exist to satisfy GNG for members of royal familes. But, because of a lack of interest from scholars in the West, they are likely limited to Georgian and or Russian. Normally I dislike arguments favoring a presumption of sources, but in this case, I think common sense practically screams it. Does anyone really think that no one in Georgia and or Russia has written extensively on the biographies and lives of Georgian Royalty? - Ad Orientem ( talk) 14:03, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
- 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.