Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Line of succession to the former Bavarian 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. Sandstein 07:04, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Line of succession to the former Bavarian 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 1918. 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. See also WP:NOTGENEALOGY. There are also WP:BLP concerns about the people who are listed here.

So basically, the same reasons as the previous 20 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). TompaDompa (talk) 14:46, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. TompaDompa (talk) 14:46, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. TompaDompa (talk) 14:46, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. TompaDompa (talk) 14:46, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For all the reasons stated above, and the line of succession in 1918, although it might be possible to find an obscure source somewhere, is now trivial. PatGallacher (talk) 14:49, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Devokewater@ 15:43, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keepor Merge with Rulers of Bavaria or House of Wittelsbach. As far as I can tell there are Reliable Sources within this article. The House of Wittelsbach still exists, it has a head of the House which is not some randomly decided position but one which is determined by a succession law. So what if the Kingdom does not exist? How did one become King when it did (hence the list of rulers may be a suitable merge target)? If the Spanish monarchy gets abolished today does that succession article get deleted the day after then? Or does it suddenly become unsuitable after a year, or 2 or 50. I would say it would always be of relevance to have an article covering the topic, same with Baden and others that have been deleted. -dwc lr (talk) 17:17, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Basically, yes, if Spain became a republic tomorrow then any alleged line of succession to the throne would probably immediately become unencyclopedic, although we might still have articles on notable pretenders. Generally speaking, on Wikipedia we do not attempt to interpret succession laws ourselves, as this often means getting into original research. I would however put the opposite case: how long should we retain articles on royal families which were overthrown, should we do so indefinitely? PatGallacher (talk) 17:57, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - The succession topics retain historic and even continuing (as the Royal Houses remain non reigning) significance. I don’t see any interpreting of succession laws just the reporting of facts. I’ve no idea what articles on deposed Royal families you are implying should be deleted? Maybe we should delete articles on defunct companies, businesses which become less and less relevant and of significance with each passing day. If a topic is notable the aim should be to cover it, whether it’s primary significance is from the present or in the past should not matter. - dwc lr (talk) 18:45, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Would you likewise be in favour of an article about the United States presidential line of succession during the Presidency of Woodrow Wilson? Because that's a more apt comparison – a line of succession that hasn't been in effect for approximately a century. Would you be in favour of an article about who would be next in line to the Woodrow Wilson presidency today? Because that is analogous to what this article purports to show, since it contains the "Current Line of Succession" (even though no such thing exists). TompaDompa (talk) 18:54, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don’t see much difference between that article or this in terms of the line of succession. There the succession is based on a post, here it’s a position placed on descent (available in Reliable Sources), I don’t see a reference explicitly saying William Barr is No. 7 in the US Presidential one. I would be in favour of US President succession article even if the post was abolished yes as its of historical relevance, as its not a hereditary post held by a Royal House there would not be a line of succession to it, like there is with Royal Houses which continue post deposition (again attributable to reliable sources). - dwc lr (talk) 07:36, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Without a kingdom to be heir to, there is no such thing as a line of succession to a kingdom. There may be a line of succession to leadership of the family, but without a kingdom attached to this, who the heirs are to the headship of a family that used to be important isn't really notable. Agricolae (talk) 19:01, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - Im more than happy for the article to be moved. You say it’s not important but there is coverage about who the immediate heirs are. If you take the House of Saxony there is a bitter dispute over who is head of the family which has been widely reported in Germany. - dwc lr (talk) 07:36, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        If that is the case then that is quite a good example of why we shouldn't have articles like this on Wikipedia, since we shouldn't take sides on these disputes ( although we might have articles on notable disputes). PatGallacher (talk) 14:16, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Are you familiar with WP:NPOV? - dwc lr (talk) 07:18, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there has to be an actual existing kingdom for there to be a line of succession to that kingdom. WP:NOTGENEALOGY, WP:NOR, WP:CRYSTAL, etc. Agricolae (talk) 19:01, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete', this is an editor-researched compilation of the likely future "head of the house of Wittelsbach". How that "head" is chosen is an internal affair of that family. The list appears to be completely unsourced speculation. —Kusma (t·c) 20:26, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Right now the only sourcing for the actual topic of this page (the current succession) appears to be the "Administration of the Duke of Bavaria" (the actual ref is an unverified publication(?) of this organization whose only search results are wiki mirrors and fan sites), which is definitely not independent and so does not demonstrate encyclopedic notability. Furthermore their website has the following disclaimer: The reproduction of information and data, in particular the use of texts, parts of texts, images and genealogy in whole and in part, require the prior consent of the Duke of Bavaria's administration, so it's unclear to what extent we are even allowed to provide the genealogical information. JoelleJay (talk) 22:27, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For the reasons stated above. This is very WP:OR and stuff invented and assumed rather than being compiled from fact. doktorb _words^deeds 07:08, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - How can one be in line of succession to a throne, that no longer exists? GoodDay (talk) 11:10, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and repurpose to Bavarian royal family. I note there are articles on most members, so that an article explaining the links is worth having. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:38, 16 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.