Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brienne claim to the Kingdom of Jerusalem


 * 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. Tone 16:49, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Brienne claim to the Kingdom of Jerusalem

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The article contains original research and the notability of its subject is not verified by reliable sources. Borsoka (talk) 03:25, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 04:09, 12 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Merge, selectively, to King of Jerusalem. Specifically, the sourced content in the prose section of this article would be an improvement over what we have at §Brienne claims. But the unsourced speculative "line of succession" can go (as is often the case with these various pretender claims). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:15, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:52, 12 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete - Note: I'm confused by this article and not an expert. In particular, I can't find any sources that the Brienne Claim was ever made by Sohier of Enghien (or even Walter V of Brienne) or his descents (That is, Hugh of Brienne's claim was legally refuted by the Haute Cour and is not mentioned as being made by his descendants that I can find). Then this article seems to merge the "Brienne" claim to the Neapolitan claim starting with Louis II of Naples. It then follows that claim until Ferdinand II of Naples dies. Then, rather than reverting to Ferdinand's uncle, Frederick of Naples (as the crown of Naples did), it "passed" to his sister, IsabelleII of Naples, and her daughter, Bona Sforza, Queen Consort of Poland. I can't find any sources that follow this argument, either. I also can't find any sources that pass any claims from John II Casimir of Poland to Henry de La Tremoille, let alone a claim to Jerusalem. I don't have any problem with genealogical fictions having articles in wikipedia when they are covered in reliable sources (we have articles about mythological family trees from stone and even iron ages), but I don't even find this in non-reliable sources outside of wiki-clones. Smmurphy(Talk) 18:03, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - it seems to be yet another of those anachronistic attempts of modern royalists to decide what the succession 'should have been', based entirely on original research (on or off Wikipedia) and not an actual historical claim. For that matter, I would recommend deletion or at a minimum a severe buzz cut to the entire #Claimant kings of Jerusalem (1291 until today) section of the King of Jerusalem article, much of which is of similar ilk. Agricolae (talk) 21:58, 17 February 2019 (UTC)


 * 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.