Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Line of succession to the former Romanian 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. I checked the Romanian royal family article regarding the merge but it seems all key points are already there. Still, ping me to retrieve the history if needed. Tone 13:24, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Line of succession to the former Romanian throne[edit]

[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 throne has been defunct since 1947. 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 monarchy doesn't exist anymore. See also WP:NOTGENEALOGY. There are also WP:BLP concerns about the people who are listed here, including one minor.

So basically, the same reasons as the previous 25 lines of successions to defunct thrones that have been deleted recently (1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25). TompaDompa (talk) 12:18, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. TompaDompa (talk) 12:18, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. TompaDompa (talk) 12:18, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. TompaDompa (talk) 12:18, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Without an existing legal framework, presenting what the line of succession would be based on no-longer operative rules as if the monarchy never fell is Alternative history. Agricolae (talk) 14:39, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.Anonimu (talk) 15:55, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and above comment. Balle010 (talk) 15:55, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This article is actually well-sourced and includes a published "line of succession" according to the formerly-royal family (so it is not OR). I think the article also does a reasonable job of clarifying that the monarchy was abolished. There are multiple third-party sources describing the various intra-familial "decrees", so it's not all coming from the family's official website, either. I think this information could be merged into Kingdom_of_Romania#Pretenders_to_the_Romanian_throne, or at least the article moved to a title that reflects the whole of the dispute rather than just the line of succession. JoelleJay (talk) 19:06, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @JoelleJay:, or we can merge into article Romanian royal family. --Norden1990 (talk) 08:23, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.Smeat75 (talk) 20:09, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devokewater@ 21:50, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I note that it actually puts forward two different lines of succession, and to complicate matters further Paul-Philippe Hohenzollern claims to be the rightful head of the House of Romania, and his claim to be a legitimate grandson of King Carol II has been recognised by the courts in some countries. This is a classic example of the sort of dispute which Wikipedia should not be getting involved with. PatGallacher (talk) 00:32, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is time to drag Wikipedia kicking and screaming into the 21st-century. This is an article that reflects the worldviews of those who reestablished the Ancient Regime and the old order in the Congress of Vienna. Yes I am saying this article reflects the world-view of the 17th century, imposed through actions in the 19th-century. It reflects a view so far out, that you have to peel back through a violent revolution that was so long ago in Romania that a great many of Wikipedia editors were not alive when it happened. A revolution that happened in the year that the largest number of Wikipedia biography subjects were born. As I say, that revolution had no effect of moving the monarchy back. Maybe as an American I think Monarchism is more dead than it is, and I have done more than any editor to include a broad array of 18th-century monarchs, mainly in Africa and Asia, in the various year by year charts of state leaders, a task that requires a lot of thankless hours and a conparison of List of state leaders in 1759 with List of state leaders in 1773 will show it hardly begun. We need to deal with real power in the real world, and displaced monarchical succession is not it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:42, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Great job, I’m sure the daily average of 0-2 people who view those articles you linked will really appreciate that. - dwc lr (talk) 08:02, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this is a defunct Royal family that will never be on the throne again, this individual has achieved nothing notable. However try living in the UK where they are obsessed by their Royal Family, class system + history.--Devokewater@ 09:33, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per JoelleJay, succession issues make international news even in The Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/aug/11/prince-nicholas-romania-royal-throne-king-michael Don’t get me wrong, despite being well sourced as JoelleJay points out, this article will be deleted and for completely spurious reasons because it’s a pure numbers game. And unfortunately we have a number of Editors who don’t like royal topics and can’t comprehend that other people may find it of use or interest. Unfortunately Wikipedia has fallen victim of the Class Wars, Culture Wars etc of recent times- dwc lr (talk) 08:02, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply I had a look at this article, it flashed up a flag that the article is over 5 years old. It seems that "king" Michael is considering whether to remove his grandson from the line of succession. This is exactly the sort of problem which some people have been flagging up: is the current line of succession of a deposed monarchy determined by the rules at the the time this monarchy was deposed, or can the current supposed monarch change these rules? It is outside the scope of Wikipedia to decide these issues. This point might conceivably be included in an article on these people, but encyclopedic content is more than something a few people might be interested in. PatGallacher (talk) 17:51, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I should clarify that I think there is a lot of sourced information in the article that belongs somewhere, but the basis of the article shouldn't be just the "current succession" to the throne since that is specifically a Romanian royalist POV and also doesn't reflect the whole situation. I think Norden1990's suggestion of merging the material with the [[Romanian_royal_family#Line_of_Succession_[11]|line of succession]] section of the Romanian royal family article would be a reasonable compromise. JoelleJay (talk) 16:01, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Norden1990 (talk) 21:57, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge some content to Romanian royal family. Such an article can provide a NPOV without implying that there is any prospect of re-accession. In the case of Romania, one of the issues is that the Communists forced the king to abdicate, but is an abdication under duress legitimate? Peterkingiron (talk) 17:09, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- John Balliol abdicated as King of Scotland in 1296 under duress from the English, but nobody believes that we can establish the subsequent level of succession to the Scottish throne. PatGallacher (talk) 18:12, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, abdication under duress still counts, nor is abdication necessary. If a country abolishes its monarchy through constitutional change, it makes no difference whatsoever whether the former king (or royalty fandom) accede to the altered circumstance or not. Agricolae (talk) 09:28, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively to Romanian royal family. While the speculative lines of succession aren't encyclopedic, there is a fair bit of sourced content about the current state of the Romanian royal family, perceptions of it, and disputes over succession which would make a reasonable addition to that article. Hut 8.5 10:28, 23 August 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.