Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Graphical representation of succession to the British throne

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 redirect to Line of succession to the British throne. Content can be merged from article history. Jujutacular ^talk 12:54, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Graphical representation of succession to the British throne

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

Unsourced content fork of Line of succession to the British throne. If a graphical representation helps explain the succession then it should be in either the article Line of succession to the British throne or Succession to the British throne rather than split off as a duplicate. DrKiernan (talk) 14:51, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Since the Line of succession to the British throne has adopted a new format (indenting children under their parents), the graphical representation is not really necessary. -JamesyWamesy (talk) 14:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Line of succession to the British throne. Apart from the pictures, it's a duplicate of another article. However, the pictures themselves would be a useful addition to that article. Luckily, the numbering system used seems to be the same so there's no need to renumber the boxes. They might have to go in as enlargeable thumbnails, but I'm sure it can be worked in somehow. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 22:19, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retain Well, the graphical representation appears nowhere else. This is merely four graphical representations with the names next to the corresponding numbers matching the general list. It provides a graphical understanding. Alan Davidson (talk) 02:00, 27 March 2011 (UTC) This editor has "!voted" twice[reply]
Delete or merge. As JamesyWamesy says, the indented format now being used at the main article makes the generational differences clearer. If a family-tree format is still regarded as beneficial, it should be used to illustrate the main article, and does not merit one of its own. Opera hat (talk) 19:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the family tree images would fit in quite nicely above the lists of various descendants at line of succession to the British throne. But the current climate at that article seems to be towards shortening as much as possible, so I doubt trying to introduce more images would go down too well at the moment. Opera hat (talk) 20:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 03:34, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Agreed this article is a duplicate of Line of succession to the British throne and would be best to merge the images on that page in some fashion. The family tree images are really great and makes understanding who fits in where much much easier. Kudos to the creator of the images. A concern on the merging. The images will be hard to keep current. Can the author provide easy instructions so other people can update the images as needed. Bgwhite (talk) 17:27, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retain or merge - very helpful to understand line of succession. I'd support merging with "Line of succession" if that article is substantially trimmed down (e.g. to the first 200 to 500 persons), otherwise I'd prefer to keep this one separate since the "Line" article already now takes much too long to load due to its size. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 23:39, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The primary part of the article is the graphics, as reflected in the title of the article. The list is not perfectly duplicated, as it is meant to only have those in line and some other minmal information. The graphics are created on Word, and not easily duplicated, unless someone does it from scratch. Alan Davidson (talk) 23:55, 6 April 2011 (UTC) This editor has "!voted" twice [I thought a new vote after the relisting was OK; should I remove it?][You could do, or redraft it as a response.][reply]
Delete or merge The images could be an interesting but not essential addition to line of succession to the British throne. GcSwRhIc (talk) 13:23, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge. Totally redundant content fork just to host an image. The image is not even useful or illuminating, it's somewhat eccentric in style, and it's extremely wide (>1,600 pixels). Also hard to update if anything changes. Hans Adler 08:37, 11 April 2011 (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.