Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of non-sovereign monarchs who lost their thrones in the 20th and 21st centuries

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. Clear consensus is this is a valid topic and that the nominator's characterization of it is mistaken. Any problems identified in the discussion can be addressed through normal discussion and editing, whether the solution is splitting, renaming, etc. postdlf (talk) 15:32, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of non-sovereign monarchs who lost their thrones in the 20th and 21st centuries[edit]

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

Unsourced original research. By definition, non-sovereign monarchies have already lost their sovereignty, and hence their thrones were already lost in some sense before the date given in this list. Many still used their titles as "non-sovereign" monarchs as a form of courtesy title both before and after the date given here. DrKay (talk) 17:36, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 20:58, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 20:58, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 20:59, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: "non-sovereign'" monarchs means "titular monarchs", they are also come under term "monarch". Some of examples given in that list are monarchs of princely states in India during British era. For example Osman Ali Khan. I think that this is an encyclopedic list, but needs improvement. Name can be moved to List of titular monarchs lost throne since 20th century or simply it can be List of titular monarchs since 20th century, because most of titular monarchs have lost their thrones by now, so no need to mention it in article name, one can mention it in lead. But this article needs editor desperate for history who can search modern history of all nations to find out such monarchs. For example India itself had over 500 titular monarchs during British era.--Human3015^TALK 21:23, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This list has a few problems but the criteria it is trying to adhere to are quite clear (provided, for instance, it is accepted that the monarchies being covered are as defined in Non-sovereign monarchy, or alternatively List of current constituent monarchs) and are pretty much in line with those we usually apply to list articles. While sources should ideally be in the article, we generally do not regard that as a fatal problem in a list article provided the entries link to articles which do supply the sources (that currently seems to be the case for some but not all entries).

The article could certainly do with some cleanup - removal of entries that can't be sourced (and sources added for those that can, particularly for redlinked entries), checking that the entries do conform with the desired definition (for instance, a few of the entries, such as Bohemia, are for subsidiary titles of the ruler of the controlling states rather than for separate subsidiary monarchs), and preferably a reorganisation of the article to group the various monarchies included under the states (or succession of states) whose sovereignty they accepted (the method of organisation that is being used both in Non-sovereign monarchy and List of current constituent monarchs). It would probably also be useful if the article distinguishes between cases where the individual monarch was deposed but replaced by another (or at least the monarchy was recognised as continuing by the relevant sovereign state) and cases where the relevant sovereign state effectively derecognised the subordinate monarchy (as in Germany in 1918 or India in 1971). But all of these are matters for normal editing.

Finally, while some of the monarchies defined as non-sovereign have effectively been titular, others have definitely been anything but - with either the subordinate monarchical state or the monarch personally constitutionally guaranteed often considerable autonomy. PWilkinson (talk) 01:26, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Split (and change name) -- This is about hereditary rulers who were not sovereigns: they were not merely titular, but may often have been local rulers owing suzerainty to a higher ruler. However, this is a horrid mixture, which needs to be split: we have German rulers who were deposed on abdicated at the end of WWI, Nigerian chiefs, Indian maharajahs, etc. All ro some extent ruled their states, but subject to some kind of imperial oversight. However those that are redlinked should either be delinked or plain removed. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:01, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: Move to Monarchs Who Lost Their Thrones etc., anyone who wants to know whether the "monarch" was sovereign or not can follow a link to an appropriate article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:46:4002:CDD0:C0FB:310D:97E1:AA36 (talk) 23:55, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 18:38, 23 October 2015 (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.