Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Line of succession to Henry VIII


 * 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  17:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Line of succession to Henry VIII

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Too trivial and obscure a matter for an encyclopedic article, why single out this specific point in English history? PatGallacher (talk) 17:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Because historians do, and they write about it in detail. See the books cited in the Further reading section of the article.  (And that's only some of them.)  The succession was an important piece of manoeuvring on Henry's part, and our article on the subject is currently lacking.  But there are clearly sources from which expansion (and correction) can be done.  An editor's subjective estimation, of how trivial and obscure something is, is irrelevant. Uncle G (talk) 18:32, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete With respects to Uncle G, it might make an intersting and speculative essay. However, the article itself begins "Assuming regular male-preference primogeniture (as is in place today), and assuming that each of his marriages was considered legitimate, the below would be the beginnings of the line of succession to the throne of Henry VIII upon his death on 29 January 1547:", giving two "assumptions" as the preface for the list of the article... thus speculation... a "what-if" article. Since Wiki is not about assumtions or speculative collections of lists, but encyclopedia based upon verification, the text appears then as original research and really should go. However, I would hope that a rewrite might be in order to the address the "speculations" in such a manner to show the cited or historical significance of these asserted "assumptions".  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 18:42, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * One doesn't have to delete the article in order to correct a sentence, nor to employ the cleanup-rewrite tag (or, indeed, the cleanup tag that is already on the article saying that it presents things in a way that is not how sources present them). See Deletion policy. If you don't like that sentence, take any of the books cited in the article in hand and correct it.  Deletion won't achieve that.  Uncle G (talk) 18:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep one of the critical points, where succession was a complex and fought over matter. Of course keep includes merge and redirect possibilities.  The fact that there are assumptions is fine if they are the assumptions used by historians or protagonists. Rich Farmbrough, 18:47 23 October 2008 (UTC).
 * Delete, original research. Decent essay, but outwith the scope of WP. Stifle (talk) 18:50, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Even though historians and constitutional experts cover the subject? Why do you think that Wikipedia's scope does not include a matter that many secondary sources analyze? Uncle G (talk) 18:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The let's change the title to Speculative line of succession to Henry VIII and precede the first sentence with "Scholars and historians have speculated, that assuming regular male-preference...", to underscore that it is opinion and conjecture... quite educated conjecture, yes... but conjecture, none-the-less.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * we do not have an article on "Speculative history of England". Everything here is based on the consensus of outside views. This is basic material and any history book is adequate; 4 std onesare cited. DGG (talk) 01:18, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak keep though it duplicates material in the individual bios and histories, it is none the less a convenient article; consider a merge, probably with H. VIII. DGG (talk) 01:18, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Actually (in response to DGG above) this article does not duplicate other articles, it disagrees with them (and they are right and it is wrong).  By Act of Parliament in 1544, H. VIII's will was recognized as determining succession.  Thus, a line of succession as understood by today's standards was not in effect at all, and it doesn't matter what it would have been.  This is sort of like an article about what would have happened if Robert E. Lee had had the atomic bomb. Chick Bowen 05:36, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment While historians certainly do discuss these issues, they also discuss the line of succession at various points during his reign, not just the end. Why not have an article on the line of succession every year in English history, or every time it changed significantly?  Also, I think there was a law that the English throne could not be inherited by a foreigner, so it's not clear that some Scots should be in this list.  Also, in the light of later developments, should Frances Brandon be ahead of her daughter Lady Jane Grey? PatGallacher (talk) 00:39, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge to Henry 8. 70.55.86.100 (talk) 07:00, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.   -- Raven1977 (talk) 21:47, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.   -- Raven1977 (talk) 21:48, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete -- Merge should not be an option, because it will clutter up the article on Henry VIII. As the article says its content was overtaken by a 1543 or 1544 Act regulating the succession to the crown, which makes the article pointless speculation.  This resolved various questions: e.g. was Elizabeth illegitimate?  The English crwon had passed through the male line for several hundred years, except that Henry IV, Edward IV and Henry VII succeeded by right of conquest, coup d'etat.  Succession by a woman was thus a novel concept.  The article is WP:OR.  Counterfactual arguements have theri place in historians' writings, but hardly in WP.  Peterkingiron (talk) 22:19, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Seems like alternative history to me. Stephen Turner (Talk) 09:55, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. While references are cited, they appear to be references from which the OR was performed. I don't recall any serious historian presenting such a list of alternative succession. Even if there is such a list somewhere, it certainly would not represent mainstream historical thought, which tends to focus on the actual succession established by Henry, not some modern rendition of what rules that never existed at the time would have made it had it not been what it really was.Agricolae (talk) 05:41, 28 October 2008 (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.