Wikipedia talk:Notability (royalty)/Archive1

message: There needs to be some type of restrictions on which monarchies/nations a royal may represent.  If no such limitation is present then individuals such as Prince Roy I of Sealand qualifies as royal despite his nation not being officially recognized by any other nation.  Similar problems could be created by other manufactured claims from the variety of micronations that claim to exist. --Allen3 talk 12:17, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Only generally recognised nations should be allowed. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 12:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I had Sealand in mind when I wrote the stipulation that the country must be sovereign. Perhaps I should clarify further; that the sovereignty of the nation must be recognized internationally (seems like splitting hairs, since unrecognized sovereignty is not sovereignty, but it can't hurt to be specific). Kafziel 22:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Micronations

message: While I can see any problems with this, seeing as I told Kafziel that I'd come here to comment, I should. Right now I think that this page is a good, solid policy statement, that, while not making it impossible or too difficult to delete Prince X's second twice removed cousin's, vainity page, does set out a good set of guidlines for users to go by. I think that what we should concentrate on now is simply work on the wording etc. For example, I added this to the page:
"Important note:  Failing to satisfy the notability guidelines is not a criterion for speedy deletion. An article that fails to even claim that the subject of the article is notable can be speedy deleted under criterion A7, however. A mere claim of notability, even if contested, may avoid deletion under A7 and require a full Article for Deletion process to determine if the subject of the article is notable."
As it is closer resembles other policy layouts. I hope this is okay. Otherwise, I think this is looking pretty good. Thε Halo Θ 12:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further thoughts... 

message: It seems quite strange to me that the biggest opponents thus far are those who think royals are inherently notable. That's exactly what this guideline is saying. WP:ROYAL is meant to keep articles from being unnecessarily sent to AfD. Its requirements are less strict than WP:BIO. I keep seeing, "Well, so-and-so doesn't meet these criteria but gets lots of media coverage." If that's the case, they already meet BIO and this has nothing to do with them. This is not meant to find a way to delete articles about royalty; this is a way to help articles stay that could otherwise be deleted.
Yes, articles on even the most minor royalty usually survive AfD. But only after long debate, and usually with a "no consensus" rather than a "keep". Because those voting keep don't have a solid basis for their reasoning, and it comes down to a matter of opinion. This would give people a guideline on which to base their reasons. If a noble fails BIO put passes this, they are notable. If a noble fails this but passes BIO, they are notable. It's win-win.
So if anyone thinks this guideline somehow makes it easier to delete an article on royalty, please give me an example of how someone could fail WP:ROYAL and WP:BIO and still be considered notable. Kafziel 12:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said, I don't think it will make it easier to delete articles, but I do think it may encourage people to nominate them for AfD or put a WP:PROD notice on them if they believe they do not meet the criteria proposed here. I know that they may well still pass WP:BIO criteria, but that doesn't stop people with an agenda from trying it on. Invent a specific set of criteria (instead of the general criteria in BIO) for notability of a specific set of individuals and somebody will use it to claim that somebody is not notable. -- Necrothesp 13:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't comment on conspiracy theories; that's not actionable. "People with an agenda" will always try to get those articles deleted, whether this guideline is here or not. This guideline does absolutely nothing to encourage prodding or AfDing articles. In fact, this guideline specifically tells people to do their best not to nominate articles on royalty for AfD, even if they don't meet these guidelines. The guidelines set out here are very easy to meet. If a person can't meet them and fails BIO, I guess they shouldn't have an article. I haven't seen an instance of that happening yet. As I said, please give me one example of a person who fails BIO and fails ROYAL who you think should still have an article, and I will be happy to make whatever changes are needed. Kafziel 13:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not making any claims that there is a conspiracy theory. That would just be silly. I just think having specific guidelines on notability of specific groups encourages claims of non-notability if people fail those guidelines (even if they pass the main guidelines at BIO). That's all. And many royals would fail these guidelines even if they pass BIO. -- Necrothesp 16:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The guideline specifically says that even if they don't meet these criteria, they are still notable if they pass BIO. If they meet BIO, they're in. I don't really know how to make it any more clear than it already is in the guideline itself. I guess I'll change it to bold text. Kafziel 16:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe size 72 :-P? Matthew Fenton (contribs) 16:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The purpose of this guideline