Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kingdom of Sicily, Jerusalem and Cyprus

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 no consensus. Sandstein 06:57, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom of Sicily, Jerusalem and Cyprus[edit]

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

This page has been the subject of some controversy. It should be deleted because it is mere content forking. This is not a title anybody would search for or scholars generally use. It is redundant to Kingdom of Sicily and a POV fork, since the kingdoms are the same. The POV is that the "Kingdom of Sicily, Jerusalem and Cyprus" in fact included Piedmont, Savoy, Aosta and other territories belonging to the House of Savoy. This interpretation of events is anachronistic and violates WP:OR and WP:SYN. It is not clear that anybody other than the creator of the article supports this bizarre interpretation. The title "Kingdom of Sicily, Jerusalem and Cyprus" is also a legitimate name for the Kingdom of Sicily, and so the title is not unique to the topic and also violates WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. If the article title were worth having, I could accept a redirect, but since edit warring has gone on long enough, I think deletion is the simplest solution. Srnec (talk) 03:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not appear to be in popular usage as the name for a kingdom. Obscure and difficult to identify a worthwhile reference on Google. Does appear to be POV-oriented. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 18:36, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. I don't like the title of the page too. A more clear disambiguation, maybe Kingdom of Sicily (Savoyard State) or Kingdom of Sicily (Savoyard period) or similar, should be better. But the basic problem is that an user, Srnec, engaged a fight to support his completely unrefereced theories which contradict every book of international law or of history. When Piedmont-Savoy became one of the winning states of the War of Spanish Succession in 1713, it received Sicily as war prize. Through Sicily, the House of Savoy obtained the royal title, and the statal standards IN PIEDMONT changed from ducal to royal: the Ducal Palace in Turin became the Royal Palace, the Ducal Army became the Royal Army, the Ducal Courts became the Royal Courts, and so on. This is an undisputed historical fact, written in all book of Piedmontese history, which Srnec can't deny. We can't delete seven years of history, from 1713 to 1720, of a sovereign independent State as Piedmont was. --Jonny Bee Goo (talk) 20:44, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- By suggesting that "Kingdom of Sicily (Savoyard period)" is a better title, Jonny is admitting that the rule of the house of Savoy was just a short period in the history of the Kingdom of Sicily, which also had Norman, Staufen, Angevin, Aragonese, Spanish, Habsburg and Bourbon periods. This is the last one to deserve a separate article, if any do. Srnec (talk) 04:43, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge 1) The head of the house of Savoy had also the title of king of Jerusalem and Cyprus that is the reason of the name of the article. For me the article can be merged with Kingdom of Sicily. User:Lucifero4

The basic point you must understand is that this article is mainly about the Savoyard State, not about Sicily. Deleting this article, we'll have a 7-years hole into the history of that independent State.--Jonny Bee Goo (talk) 08:41, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand from 1713 to 1720 Sicily was under the rule of House of Savoy. The head of House of Savoy was for 7 years king of Sicily like the Bourbon so in the article Kingdom of Silily the section The War of the Spanish Succession" can be renamed and expanded.User:Lucifero4

The problem here, Lucifero, is not Sicily but Piedmont. IN PIEDMONT in 1713 all ducal standards became ROYAL standards. How do you think to explain this fact? Looking wikipedia, we can find separate pages about first, second, third,... tenth republics about European countries of the 20th century, justifying these separations with sometimes microscopic constitutional changes. Why speaking about the same countries during the 18th century, we must consider irrilevant the royal elevation of a former duchy?--Jonny Bee Goo (talk) 12:07, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From 1713 to 1720/23 Piemonte was part of the Kingdom of Sicily and from 1723 to 1861 was part of Kingdom of Sardinia.User:Lucifero4

How "was part"? By annexation?--Jonny Bee Goo (talk) 23:48, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Turin a city of Piemonte was the capital of the Kingdom of Sardinia so the city and the whole region were in the kingdom of Sardinia. Piemonte wasn't annexed but become part of Kingdom of Sardinia when the Duke of Savoy, the ruler of Turin, become king of Sardinia.User:Lucifero4

Comment So far as the article title goes, the main problem is that, as Jonny Bee Goo admits, it has little to do with the Kingdom of Sicily - it's about the lands ruled by the House of Savoy during the period when Duke Victor Amadeus II of Savoy was also King of Sicily. Given that, at least up to 1860, the Dukes of Savoy tended to base themselves in Piedmont, no matter what other titles they held and used, this seems similar to an article called Kingdom of Poland (Saxon period) which concentrates on Saxony between 1697 and 1764. Additionally, I would like at least to see further evidence that the longer-standing lands of the House of Savoy, all nominally still within the Holy Roman Empire one way or another, were regarded at the time as part of the Kingdom of Sicily (or indeed as part of the Kingdom of Sardinia before at least the mid-18th century) as distinct from being in personal union with it. Unless this can be provided, I would think that anything in the article should fit without much difficulty into one or other of Duchy of Savoy, Kingdom of Sicily or Victor Amadeus II of Sardinia. PWilkinson (talk) 18:56, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, Saxony and Poland maintained effectively two separate governments during their union, in fact Saxony was not ruled by Polish lords, so the European countries continued to see them as two quite distinct countries (even if with a unique diplomatic representation). In our case, we have not a single evidence indicating that Savoy and Sicily were seen as two distinct countries by other European sovereigns, and this is quite obvious because Sicily, not being a subject of international law before 1713, couldn't change its status when it was ceded by Spain to Savoy. --Jonny Bee Goo (talk) 23:48, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep By our accepted practice, if the title was used for a period of even a few years, it's a distinct state, an the only way to keep a clear sequence in the history is to include it. But I am not entirely sure that it was so used, and that he may not simply have been monarch of the three countries. Perhaps the article can be retitled, but this can bediscussed on the talk p. I cannot see how anyone can argue we should not have an article for the period. At present this is the article,so we should go about finding additional sources and verifying them. (which I admit I have not done) DGG ( talk ) 07:26, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's an absurd practice that we don't really have. Different titles make different states? But, as I noted in the deletion rationale, there is in fact no different title/name for the state during this period. He was monarch of Sicily, and claimed title to Jerusalem and Cyprus (which weren't "countries" at the time). There is a discussion in progress at the talk page. Perhaps you'd care to read it? Srnec (talk) 22:14, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - The inhabitants of Turin began to live in a kingdom in 1713, Srnec. Why this simple concept is so difficult to understand for you?--Jonny Bee Goo (talk) 23:48, 21 April 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, Sandstein 07:02, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The arguments given for deletion are a bizarre interpretation of our policies. --Lambiam 00:17, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- But a justified one. Please see Talk:Kingdom of Sicily, Jerusalem and Cyprus. —Srnec (talk) 04:46, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. —Agricolae (talk) 15:57, 28 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.