Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thurn and Taxis line of succession

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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:25, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thurn and Taxis line of succession[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 is a line of succession to the defunct princely throne. Precedent has established such articles are to be deleted (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 26 27 28 29 30 31 32, 33). JoelleJay (talk) 18:11, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. JoelleJay (talk) 18:11, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. JoelleJay (talk) 18:11, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. JoelleJay (talk) 18:11, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is nothing to succeed to, hasn't been sovereign for over 200 years, hasn't been a noble family that would have a meaningful head for over 100 years. As such, it is alternative history, pseudo-crystal balling what the rules of succession would be now had it persisted, yet it is not self evident that nothing would have changed (e.g. status of morganatic marriages, succession by females, both of which have been changed in some persisting monarchies over the same time period). Plus the precedent. Agricolae (talk) 22:07, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The single source given is a genealogical directory not a line of succession. Original research. DrKay (talk) 16:47, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Agricolae, rules of succession for nonexistent thrones are fantasy. —Kusma (𐍄·𐌺) 16:59, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Agricolae and per WP:GAMEOFNONEXISTENTTHRONES. (Deletion is coming.) Clarityfiend (talk) 22:40, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom and fails GNG Sharath Abhivadyah ^{Talk Page} 15:19, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- at worst redirect to Thurn und Taxis. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:07, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete They haven't been soverign since the fall of the HRE, clear concensus from previous discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:22, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Devoke water 13:32, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Make believe, over a 100 years after house is defunct.PrisonerB (talk) 11:49, 6 April 2021 (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.