Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lukás of Bulgaria

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 of the debate was keep (no consensus). Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:56, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lukás of Bulgaria[edit]

nn child "prince" of a monarchy abolished 60 years ago Gene Nygaard 08:54, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nominator. Gene Nygaard 09:52, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. These royal families are in themselves notable. In the case of Bulgaria, all the more so since Simeon returned to the country to be prime minister. Unless it is being alleged that Lukas is a hoax, this is a clear keep. Bucketsofg 09:14, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment So do an article about the "notable family"—that doesn't make everybody with a remote connection to it notable. It's pretty ridiculous to require published college professors and scientists to stand out from the crowd, yet some kid who never did anything who calls himself a "prince" because some distant ancestor was a tsar, when his father (and maybe even grandfather or further back) came after the monarchy was abolished. Gene Nygaard 09:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'll add a vote (already nominated and voted for Lukás) to delete those three fake "princes" or "princesses" of this make-believe monarchy for the same reason. Gene Nygaard 10:20, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep unless we're going to delete all articles on all former royals. Jcuk 10:38, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Someone who wasn't born until half a century after the monarchy ended is not a "former royal". 66.97.254.212 15:24, 25 March 2006 (UTC) Gene Nygaard, not logged in.[reply]
ok then members of formerly royal families, if you must be pedantic. Jcuk 17:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Many normal, non-notable people have royalty in their ancestry if you go back far enough. Where would we draw the line? The most sensible thing to do is to only include individuals who were part of the royal family at the point in time during which the family was, in fact, royal. --Icarus 08:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete or preferably Merge into one article about the family. Former royals would mostly be notable but the second son of the third son is probably stretching it a bit far. Davewild 12:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Pretenders to thrones/titles at least have verifiable claims to the titles they aspire, as opposed to the self-generated (really vanity) sources for the micronations Wikipedia treats as notable. Certainly more notable than all those those hereditary British peers who have listings, notable mostly for inbreeding and the human rights abuses their 16th century ancestors committed. Monicasdude 15:26, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So would we consider all "citizens" of a micronation, including infants, to thus be notable if we have an article about that micronation? I certainly hope not. Gene Nygaard 17:16, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What possible good would any redirects do? Even their best friends and their schoolteachers would likely give you a blank stare if you referred to them under the names with which they appear here on Wikipedia, wouldn't they? Kubrat isn't notable either; even he was born more than two decades after the monarchy ended, and only the third son of the still-living former boy king, and doesn't go by the name under which he is listed here. Gene Nygaard 20:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Worthier than micronations and Pokemon. ReeseM 02:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Ardenn 03:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable family, possibly notable 8-year-old. ProhibitOnions 23:26, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Icarus. Lots of people are descended from formerly-royal families whose monarchy was extinguished. This does not make them notable. MCB 01:28, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Simeon is clearly notable, but unless his children and grandchildren do something on their own, they should only be mentioned as one sentence each on Simeon's article. And frankly, I'm not even sure if the grandchildren should even get that. As everyone says, above, there is a near-infinite number of descendants of notable royals. We even have an article on that, Royal Descent.GRuban 15:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Royal families are all pretty important, both historically and today. Therefore, as a general rule I think we should encourage articles on nobility and their offspring. -- JJay 00:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • From that Royal Descent article mentioned by Gruban: "Roderick W. Stuart says in his book Royalty for Commoners (3rd edition 1998) that the American descendants of Edward III "number in the millions"." Gene Nygaard 04:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Furthermore, the throne Edward III occupied still exists. Gene Nygaard 04:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That might be an intersting factoid to add to the Edward III page. Otherwise, was there a point you were trying to make? -- JJay 16:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think he was referring to throne as the physical item of furniture, but rather to the occupation. There still is such a position as King/Queen of Great Britain, etc., whereas there no longer is such a position as King/Queen of Bulgaria. Do we have an article on the current King of France? GRuban 17:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good point. Should Lukas publish 6 books and file a lawsuit to claim his throne, I would support his notability. Or if a movement backing his rights to the throne becomes notable. Until then, let's give the 8 year old a bit of privacy. GRuban 18:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I doubt his privacy would be affected much, because I doubt that anybody knows him by the name under which his article appears—and there's not much of anything about him in any case. Gene Nygaard 15:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's setting the bar way too high for me. As for his privacy, well, he may not have chosen to be born a prince, but it's a cross he will have to bear for the rest of his life. Since we are a reference work, I don't think we should be leaving people out because of privacy concerns.-- JJay 19:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the point Gene Nygaard was making regarding Edward III's descendants was that merely being one does not make a single one of those millions of people notable. If they have articles here, it's because they're notable for something else. Also, regarding GRuban's point, I agree—to a point. I agree that Lukas et al have to do something notable before they merit inclusion, though I agree with JJay that it doesn't have to be six books and a lawsuit just because that's what Henri did. Finally, regarding the boy having been born a prince—no he wasn't, he was born the grandson of someone who was a Tsar decades upon decades ago. If he's notable as a "prince", then where do we draw the line to prevent millions of Edward III's descendants from making vanity articles? --Icarus 23:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly—that is my point. I don't know whether I am descended from Edward III, but maybe I should start working on the tens of thousands of descendants of his ancestors who were monarchs in various still-existing monarchies (as well as various no-longer-existing ones such as Kiev and Italy) which I do have in my genealogy database, if that makes us all notable. I should even get to count kings of Castile or kings of Essex or whatever, since Spain and the UK are still monarchies, don't I? Gene Nygaard 15:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable; notability is not inherited like his crown. Carlossuarez46 00:05, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all those Bulgarian pseudo-nobles per Carlos; once the monarchy is abolished, descendants must be notable on their own. Otherwise, are we going to have articles on every one of the some million descendants of Genghis Khan? Sandstein 08:45, 1 April 2006 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lukás_of_Bulgaria&oldid=1080093191"