Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James, Duke of Rothesay (born 1507)

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 James IV. Calling this consensus to delete would certainly be reasonable, but with an logical redirect target that already exists, that option seems hard to ignore (even if nobody explicitly mentioned it), and it leaves the history intact in case somebody wants to merge material. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:03, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

James, Duke of Rothesay (born 1507)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This very short-lived person has no notability independent of his father. The article says very little about him, sourcing seems to consist of trivial mentions in genealogical reference works. PatGallacher (talk) 20:27, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:46, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete Pretty much the whole article is about the succession issues around James IV; I don't see the need to discuss this in a separate article. Mangoe (talk) 23:42, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He never actually held an important office, just a short-lived name in a genealogy. Hog Farm (talk) 02:00, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, classic WP:NOTINHERITED.TheLongTone (talk) 16:17, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can see why this article exists as he was the heir apparent and holder of a significant dukedom. However, I accept that his short life means it is very difficult to say he himself had the level of notability needed to justify a separate article and I think he could easily be covered in the article of his father. Had his death triggered a section crisis or there was evidence of it causing a significant impact on his father's reign then it might be a different story, but there is nothing to suggest this. I also would say if this is deleted it would be worth looking at whether his equally short-lived brother Arthur Stewart, Duke of Rothesay needs his own article. Dunarc (talk) 23:47, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, but at this stage I am trying to establish a precedent. PatGallacher (talk) 01:51, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - No problem, that is a sensible approach to take. Dunarc (talk) 20:38, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I really see no reason why Wikipedia should hold articles on anyone who died before the age of 5. There might be exceptions, but I have yet to see an article that is truly an exception to this general idea.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:14, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- We do have John I of France, but that is very much an exception. PatGallacher (talk) 07:44, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge / Partial merge with James IV. Specifically, the last paragraph or two seem like it might be worth migrating to the James IV article to give some context to the succession of his throne. And if this article is deleted, merging the information about him dying a year after his birth to James IV might remind people why there is no wiki article on him. Whisperjanes (talk) 20:08, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He was heir to the throne of Scotland, however short a time he lived. This makes him notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:11, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - he was heir to the throne and, at least in theory, a member of Parliament. Bearian (talk) 00:10, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- As a minor he would not have been entitled to sit in Parliament. PatGallacher (talk) 01:18, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Also did the Scottish Parliament actually meet during the brief period of his lifetime? I am not sure of the answer to this, but given there were lengthy gaps between meetings it is entirely possible it never did and this would render is theoretical membership of it moot. Dunarc (talk) 21:59, 13 March 2020 (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.