Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Line of succession to the former Bulgarian 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. The "keep" and "merge" side don't really address the sourcing proplems with this material.  Sandstein  19:39, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Line of succession to the former Bulgarian throne

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article is mostly unsourced, and I question if you can have a line of succession to a throne which no longer exists. PatGallacher (talk) 18:15, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:23, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:23, 15 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete per 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 monarchy doesn't exist anymore. The same logic applies here as with 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) 19:35, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge with Bulgarian royal family. Article has multiple references, what exactly is “unsourced” as alleged by nominator? You can have a line of succession to the headship of the former ruling family which this article presents supported by a reliable source. - dwc lr (talk) 20:04, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Nouvelle Imprimerie Laballery describes itself as provider of short run printings, it most likely qualifies as a vanity press, thus not really a reliable source.Anonimu (talk) 16:06, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed, what is Le Petit Gotha? The title would seem to suggest a connection to the Almanach de Gotha, but I have found nothing online that confirms any affiliation. The former is apparently published in Paris and the latter in London (nowadays), so it seems that they are unrelated. I'll also note that the modern-day Almanach de Gotha has been criticized as inaccurate (this has been discussed way back, see Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 17 and Talk:Almanach de Gotha/Archive 1), so even if they are affiliated that's not necessarily a point in Le Petit Gotha's favour. As a matter of fact, it's very difficult to find in-depth information about Le Petit Gotha or either of its authors, Chantal de Badts de Cugnac and Guy Coutant de Saisseval, online (though I did find a little information about the latter, via French Wikipedia). In combination with 's point about the publisher and the high standards of sourcing mandated by WP:BLP, all of this makes it highly questionable whether Le Petit Gotha can be considered a WP:RELIABLE source for this material. TompaDompa (talk) 23:45, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * keep It is entirely false to say that lines of succession are invalid if the throne no longer exists. Charles II of England would be an obvious example.  Merging would be OK. Denzil1963 (talk) 21:48, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That's a bit of a WP:CRYSTAL argument. The monarchy could be restored with an entirely different dynasty, let alone line of succession (see for instance Spain in the 1870s). And of course, it's also entirely possible that it is never restored. TompaDompa (talk) 22:31, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * How did Georg Friedrich, Prince of Prussia, Karl von Habsburg, and the list goes on, become head of their respective dynasties? Are they just randomly plucked off the street, or is it because there is a line of succession. - dwc lr (talk) 07:41, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * From the case in Korea (Yi Seok), it is totally possible that, if one is loud enough, people would believe he/she would be the rightful heir. Yi Seok would be a very impossible person to succeed because he's merely the 10th son of Prince Yi Kang, but now Reuters and some prominent media often calls him an would-be monarch, despite that in Korea Yi Seok was only recognized by his supporters. - George6VI (talk) 08:44, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * How did Georg Friedrich, Prince of Prussia, Karl von Habsburg, and the list goes on, become head of their respective dynasties? Are they just randomly plucked off the street, or is it because there is a line of succession. The problem there is that you are making the counterfactual assumption that the line of the succession to the House is the same as the line of succession to a throne which no longer exists (this article is not line of succession to the Bulgarian branch of the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha-Koháry). Really, the question you should be asking is "If Simeon Saxe-Coburg-Gotha died tomorrow, who would succeed him as Tsar of Bulgaria?" to which the answer is "nobody, because that position (and indeed, the monarchy itself) doesn't exist anymore". Your own examples demonstrate this: Georg Friedrich, Prince of Prussia is not German Emperor, and Karl von Habsburg is not Emperor of Austria/King of Hungary. TompaDompa (talk) 10:04, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * So as you point out a simple move solves the problem. Line of succession to the headship of the former ruling House of Bulgaria. Then the article can deal with the present in the article title and body of text, I.e. the present former ruling House, and the historic in the body of text, I.e succession to the abolished kingdom of Bulgaria. - dwc lr (talk) 10:49, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Not really, you would need to (1) demonstrate that the line of succession to the headship of that family meets Wikipedia's WP:Notability guidelines separately from the notability of the line of succession to the former Bulgarian throne (since those two are not the same thing) and (2) source the line of succession in its entirety to WP:Reliable sources (i.e. not derive it from genealogy since that would be WP:OR/WP:SYNTH). And really, your proposal of a stand-alone article with that title sounds awfully redundant to the article Bulgarian royal family (which should probably be renamed to something like Bulgarian branch of the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha-Koháry or something with the word "former" in the title). TompaDompa (talk) 11:21, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * There will in by far the most cases always be a line of succession to a monarchial institution, if that institution was based on the principle of inheriting the tile, unless the family in question has run out of heirs (which pretty much seem to be the case in Romania), your assumption that the line of succession to a former throne dosen't exist any more is pretty much an (unsourced) opinion, a private opinion you may say, can you for instance find any UN-resolution that states, that line of succession to defunct thrones dosen't exist any more? I think not. We do actually have a number of cases, where referendums have been held about the question whether an abolished monarchy should be restored. If we put the 1947 Spanish referendum aside, because it didn't involve reinstating an actual monarch in the job, then there are at least four known examples of such referendums: 1935 Greek monarchy referendum, 1953 Maldivian constitutional referendum, 1993 Brazilian constitutional referendum & 1997 Albanian monarchy referendum. These referendums would have been meaningless, if the nations where they took place didn't think a) there is actually a former royal family, we can put back on the throne and b) there is a line of succession in that family that determins, who will become monarch and who will become first, second, third and so forth in the line of succession if we the people/nation decides to bring back the monarchy to our country. In a former reply to my first posting in this thread you tried to present "an analogy" between monarchial and presidential lines of successions. Your argument/analogy might at first make sence to some republicans, but it surely dosen't make any sense to most monarchists. The line of succession to those monarchies we are debating, defunct or not, are based on the principal of right by birth and some principals about the order of births and to variuos extent about the sex of the people born in the particular royal/princely family. How many in the United States presidential line of succession have their place in the line based on the principle of birth(right)? Well the obvious answer is none! If we bring back a former monarchy, to be a functional monarchy again, the line of succession will be clear from day one, unless the nation in question decides to change the rules upon which these succession rights was/are based. If we had referendums in more than two third of the states in The United States (I know that there aren't referendums about such matters, but for the line of argument - actually they have just had a referendum like that in Russia, so we could also use them as example) about changing the constitution so presidents (again) can run for a third (or more) term, and this was approved by the US congress and at least two third of the states in the union, then Bush, Clinton or Obama could run for another term as president, and if elected, then what about "the line of succession"? Well, it would probably be very different from their last term in office. The vice-president would probably be someone new, so would the Speaker of the House of Representatives & the President pro tempore of the Senate and most of the cabinet would probably also be new (or old people in new positions) faces, so "the line of succession" would be utterly different from their latest term. Also there seem to be a notion, that princely titles dosen't exist any more just because the monarchy in a particular country was abolished. Well, for many members of princely and noble families their titles is in fact more or less equivalent to the surnames that the most of the rest of the people in the world use. They can of course choose to use a more common family name, but no government in the world can decide, that a certain family have to give up their princely or noble titles whereever in the world they may live. I know for sure this to be the case in the country where I live. We do have an existing monarchy and we also have a central registration of all people with permanent residence in the country (or with previous permanent residence in the country), so everyone including the royal family and their noble cousins and every princely person from any other princely house living in the country is registered in the same database. Obviously our royal family don't have a surname, so they are registered by some title or some other manner, and the same with other princely people, who lives in the country. If the family have lived in the country for generations or if the can document, that they are entitled to use a specific princely title as their "surname" then they can/will be registered this way, and since I work with these matters professionally, I known for sure. Lets take Germany as another example. Perhaps the nobility and the former princely houses in Germany isn't recogniced by the state/law as such any more, but the Germans are a polite people, and if someone would like to be called von or zu or Prinz or Fürst, and they have the "traditional right" to be addressed in this manner, then the Germans will usually do so, that is at least my impression, when I read German medias, the Prinzes and the Fürsts are still here in the year 2020 referenced in the articles by these titles (if they which so). It's not up to us here at Wikipedia to say, that they can not or are not 'allowed' to use such titles - then we would have to have consensus on this matter for all nations in the world before such a policy could be 'relevant'. As written earlier, for many of these people, their title would be comparable with the surnames that you and I and most other people use. If we said, that a certain country had the right to abolish the use of such titles for every individual person holding these titles and we at Wikipedia accepted such a policy, then it would from my point of view be like endorsing the Turkish law and policy, that Kurdish people in Turkey may not use Kurdish family names, they have to use a Turkish name or at least a Turkish variation of the Kurdish name. But to my knowledge, the president and government of Turkey have no authority (or at least only limited so) over Kurds hailing from Turkey but now living outside this country. If the people in question want to change their name in their country of residence from a Turkish name to a Kurdish name, and use that name, then that is their free right as individuals to do so - the same free right applies (hopefully) to people of princely and royal descent. Did I forget anything. If so I might be back for more. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 15:23, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That there is no line of succession when there is no monarchy isn't an opinion, it's what there being no monarchy means. Like I said before: the question you should be asking is "If Simeon Saxe-Coburg-Gotha died tomorrow, who would succeed him as Tsar of Bulgaria?" to which the answer is "nobody, because that position (and indeed, the monarchy itself) doesn't exist anymore". That's all there is to it. And you also have the WP:BURDEN of proof backwards: All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. You're the one arguing for the inclusion of material, so you're the one who needs to demonstrate that the line of succession to the defunct throne still exists. Which you can't, because it doesn't. Whether you realize it or not, you actually admit that you are making some big assumptions here. If we bring back a former monarchy, to be a functional monarchy again, the line of succession will be clear from day one, unless the nation in question decides to change the rules upon which these succession rights was/are based. "If" and "unless" do a lot of heavy lifting there. As pointed out over at Articles for deletion/Line of succession to the former Portuguese throne, When Spain restored a monarchy in 1975, the person chosen was not the person next in line based on the prior rules of succession. By your own admission, the restoration of the monarchy with identical rules of succession is hypothetical. In other words, it's speculative, alternative history – real-life fan fiction, if you will. However, Wikipedia is WP:NOTSPECULATION. Also there seem to be a notion, that princely titles dosen't exist any more just because the monarchy in a particular country was abolished. This is completely beside the point. Whether the titles exist is not what's being argued here. What's being argued here is whether the line of succession exists when the monarchy has been abolished (it doesn't). TompaDompa (talk) 19:21, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Le Petit Gotha sets out the line of succession (one person has died since it was published), have you seen Succession to the Bhutanese throne? The whole line of succession is unsourced and I doubt it could be to reliable sources. Or Succession to the British throne says  Zenouska Mowatt is 55th based on a book published in 2015, I.e. which might say she is in line but won’t say she is 55th as people will have been born since so she would have been higher in 2015. Back to this AFD even if the whole line of succession were deleted how the succession is determined is still relevant for discussion of them. But I’m more than happy to merge with Bulgarian Royal Family as I’ve said above. - dwc lr (talk) 07:11, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * What does Le Petit Gotha say, exactly? Does it say "these are the rules of succession, and this is the genealogy", "these were the rules of succession, and this is the genealogy", "this is the theoretical line of succession to the throne if the monarchy were restored", "this is the line of succession to the headship of the house", or something else? This matters quite a bit. Indeed, it would be ideal if we could find sources for all extant lines of succession that are as explicit as this one for the Succession to the Norwegian throne or this one for the Succession to the Swedish throne (Princess Adrienne is tenth in the line of succession, following […]). However, the difference between the Bhutanese and Bulgarian lines of succession is that while the former is currently unsourced, the latter is fundamentally unverifiable. If you think that the article Succession to the Bhutanese throne should be deleted, go right ahead and nominate it for deletion – that article being poor is irrelevant to this one being fundamentally unverifiable. TompaDompa (talk) 22:40, 19 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep per Denzil1963 - and also it's not rocket science to keep track of this line of succession since they all descend from the last zar, who is still alive. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 22:09, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll try to explain why I don't think this line of reasoning holds up by using an analogy: Jimmy Carter is still alive, and the United States presidential line of succession from his presidency is well-documented. However, while it is trivial to say who would have succeeded Carter if he had died in office (his Vice President, Walter Mondale), that line of succession is no longer in effect which means that nobody is next in the line of succession to the former presidency of Jimmy Carter today. The same argument can of course be applied to Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama. TompaDompa (talk) 23:24, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Woa - First time Iv'e seen presidents and royalty compared this way. LOL! Oleryhlolsson (talk) 07:30, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I have no idea how this analogy applies. Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:50, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * What is it you don't understand about it? Perhaps I can explain further. TompaDompa (talk) 14:10, 16 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete per reasonings for pervious line of succession deletions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.110.217.186 (talk) 02:13, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - From what I experienced in other similar succession articles, people could just pick biased or misleading news to be the source of the succession line claim and the Wikipedia article would therefore become untrustworthy. By that I mean is about former Chinese and Korean Imperial family. As such, I hope the remaining line of succession articles could be those including the concensus in those county and the former royal family, or who knows if the succession and/or statements can be verified, considering there may be some cultural differences we may not be aware of? - George6VI (talk) 08:26, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Im not sure what relevance any of this has to do with Bulgaria? There are reliable sources backing up what’s in the article? That’s how Wikipedia works. If Korea has a succession dispute then reliable sources will reflect that and Wikipedia reflect them. - dwc lr (talk) 11:08, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm saying, most of the line of succession to the former throne articles share the same problem. In short, I support the deletion and the rest of similar articles, except those supposedly has solid references about certain former royal house still goes by the provided line of succession. - George6VI (talk) 11:54, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * This one has references. Le Petit Gotha (cited in the article) clearly sets out the line of succession, it sets out the succession law. - dwc lr (talk) 07:11, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Nuh-uh. The line of succession was valid when the monarchy was ruling, but as of now is it valid? The people listed are descendants of the former royal family, but the line of succession should be referenced clearly that the family still apply the law to the current living people. Just like the other people said, "If Simeon Saxe-Coburg-Gotha died tomorrow, who would succeed him as Tsar of Bulgaria?" And here is the end of my discussion here, and I am not going to change my mind. - George6VI (talk) 16:10, 17 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep or Merge with Bulgarian royal family - I have no issue with this information being on Wikipedia, there is still importance associated with larger royal lines that currently don't rule. It could be merged though, IMHO. Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:47, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment An obvious problem:the article says that the line of succession consists of Orthodox males born to approved marriages, we don't know if all the men in this list are Orthodox or born to approved marriages, as has been noted in discussions on the British line of succession there are problems about assigning children to a religion. PatGallacher (talk) 20:15, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Why is that a problem? We are not engaging in Original Research here, the article has a reliable source citing who is in line? What your suggesting is a problem if we make it up ourselves. - dwc lr (talk) 07:11, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Per nom. Anonimu (talk) 16:06, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 20:23, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 20:23, 17 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete There are no current legal framework by which such a line of succession can be rightly determined, and prior rules do not represent binding precedent for any hypothetical future creation or recreation of a monarchy. Thus it is alternative history predicated on the counterfactual supposition that the legal framework of 1946 was still operative now. Agricolae (talk) 20:29, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete if a throne is no more there is no line of succession to it, thus making all the contents of the article patently false.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:40, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:CRYSTAL; I do not oppose a merger to Bulgarian royal family, which I can do. There's almost no little chance Bulgaria will bring back their royalty. Bearian (talk) 22:10, 19 August 2020 (UTC) I merged it. You may want to redirect to save attribution. Bearian (talk) 22:18, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * as premature, considering this discussion has yet to close (and we don't know what the outcome will be). TompaDompa (talk) 22:52, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge to Bulgarian royal family. That is a somewhat sprawling genealogy, which might usefully be pruned and focused on those closely related to the last Tsar.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:12, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete this is a defuct Royal Family that will never have any prominence in Bulgaria, see WP:CRYSTAL -- Devoke water  (talk)  14:38, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete this is fundamentally unencyclopedic speculation: there is no Bulgarian monarchy any more so there are no accepted rules on what the line of succession should be. Even if Bulgaria did decide to restore their monarchy there is no guarantee that they would use the same line of succession.  Hut 8.5  10:50, 23 August 2020 (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.