Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jean-Philippe de Bourbon-Navarre

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 Keep. --Mike Cline (talk) 23:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bourbons of India (neé Jean-Philippe de Bourbon-Navarre)[edit]

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

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

non-notable cryptohistory fringe theory, OR, speculation, guesswork, dripping with "we don't know"s and on and on Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 17:39, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:20, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:20, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems to be a well documented fringe theory. This is a candidate for cleanup and not deletion. Remove the OR and speculative portions and there can be a small stub documenting the claims and counter claims. If the article is kept, i volunteer to do the cleanup.--Sodabottle (talk) 04:09, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've been thinking of a restructuring along the lines of fr:Bourbons des Indes, which on the whole does a far better job of approaching the subject without falling into the "Criticisms of …" trap. Uncle G (talk) 10:56, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep obviously sufficient sources, both for the real people and the legend. the actual family should be described first, and the reputed origins second. I think the origins part clearly fringe history, and treating it as such--which does not mean eliminating it. . (I may to some extent disagree with both uncle G and sodabottle about the degree to which the unlikely nature of the material should be made clear, and would retain more of the references than they in order to show it. I consider the lede phrase of the French article-- "Il existerait une branche des Bourbons dite Bourbons des Indes" to improperly indicate that they are a branch of the Bourbons. ) DGG ( talk ) 00:25, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is that only a few sources do rebut this. Most of the roughly two centuries worth of sources just plain repeat the assertion. The "Criticisms of …" trap is, of course, to do what was done here originally, which you can see. The French Wikipedia avoids that trap by structuring differently, we do now. It's also worth noting that there is no real dispute (to be found, at any rate) as to the existence of the de Bourbon family in later centuries. Uncle G (talk) 12:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Good work once again by Uncle G (he linked to this AfD from my talk page, btw). It's tale that has been knocking around for a long time, e.g. see this article from the New York Times in 1886. Without doubt a notable topic. Fences&Windows 21:10, 1 December 2010 (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.