Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Line of succession to the former Hanoverian 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 delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:45, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Line of succession to the former Hanoverian throne

[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 kingdom has been defunct since 1866. This article looks like unverifiable original research, including about the supposed royal status of living persons (WP:BLP). See also WP:NOTGENEALOGY. Compare Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Line of succession to the former Austro-Hungarian throne for a similar case. Norden1990 (talk) 08:23, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Norden1990 (talk) 08:23, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:32, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Poorly sourced, full of BLP violations, impossible to verify. Smeat75 (talk) 14:01, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DEL-REASON 6: Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and articles that are themselves hoaxes (but not articles describing notable hoaxes). It is impossible to attribute the current line of succession to this throne to WP:RELIABLE sources, because there is no current line of succession, because the Kingdom itself doesn't even exist anymore. TompaDompa (talk) 17:24, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Smeat. JoelleJay (talk) 19:57, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and actually I think we should delete most of these articles on lines of succession to deposed monarchies for the same reasons, although we should retain articles on notable pretenders. PatGallacher (talk) 13:30, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is the sort of article that could easily be improved by a little bit of research consulting reliable sources. Why did Queen Victoria not ascend the Hanoverian throne, the Brunswick succession question from 1884 until 1913, even recently succession questions get reported (as reliably sourced in the article) by the head of the House refusing to dynastically recognise his sons marriage. Unfortunately across topics like deposed royals there is no interest from certain editors in actually improving any articles, this is obvious rather than replacing self published websites with reliable sources (which could easily be done by doing a Google Books search) the lazy/easy route of removing the SPS and citation request gets added instead. The only interest is in deleting or renaming article titles they don’t like (i.e. making up names). - dwc lr (talk) 07:19, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unrecoverable, per everyone else. --JBL (talk) 20:58, 30 July 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.