Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Line of succession to the former German 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:16, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Line of succession to the former German throne

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This throne has been defunct since 1918. 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 monarchy doesn't exist anymore. See also WP:NOTGENEALOGY. There are also WP:BLP concerns about the people who are listed here, including three minors.

So basically, the same reasons as 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) 14:47, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. TompaDompa (talk) 14:47, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. TompaDompa (talk) 14:47, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. TompaDompa (talk) 14:47, 9 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete For all the reasons stated above. Also the question of whether some people are ruled out because of morganatic marriages is the sort of dispute which we should avoid getting into.  The line of succession in 1918, although it might be possible to find an obscure source somewhere, is now trivial. PatGallacher (talk) 14:53, 9 August 2020 (UTC)


 * There is no justification for removing this article, as there are those who support the return of the German throne. No theory has been advanced that suggests that any of those referenced do not have a legitimate claim to said throne.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.60.241.226 (talk) 15:23, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You got it backwards. What's needed for this article to be valid is sources that WP:VERIFY the contents, not a lack of sources that contradict the contents. TompaDompa (talk) 15:31, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, there have been monarchist movements in some countries which do not take a firm view about who specifically they want restored to the throne, e.g. France, Russia. PatGallacher (talk) 15:59, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom Devokewater @ 15:41, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep topic of important historic significance, even if it’s of less significance in 2020. This Article should inform about who was eligible to become German Emperor etc, article needs improving of that there is no doubt however. As to BLP, reliable sources exist which list members of the Royal Family, births are reported in the media. - dwc lr (talk) 18:50, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Tell me, who succeeded Wilhelm II as German Emperor when he died? That's right, nobody did. The line of succession is not of "less significance in 2020", it was already of no significance at all in 1941 (and frankly, in 1919). This article is a bunch of nonsense for the same reason it's a nonsense question to ask who succeeded the Presidency of Woodrow Wilson when he died in 1924, and especially to ask who is next in line to the Woodrow Wilson presidency today (which is the equivalent of Line of succession to the former German throne). TompaDompa (talk) 19:34, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep as we have other Defunct succession articles, of this nature. GoodDay (talk) 19:29, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and as noted in my nomination we have been deleting quite a few of them recently. TompaDompa (talk) 19:31, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Either you keep'em all or delete'em all. GoodDay (talk) 21:29, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * By my count we're about halfway to deleting them all. Shall we consider you in favour of deletion, then? TompaDompa (talk) 21:35, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - very well, go for it. GoodDay (talk) 22:19, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete, fictional throne, as relevant as the succession to the throne of Gondor. —Kusma (t·c) 19:51, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.110.217.186 (talk) 19:52, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. I struggle to see how this article could be reliably, independently sourced, especially without using OR. A line of succession should by itself be notable and reported on in whole: taking disparate sources (e.g. birth announcements) and integrating them into a novel list via your interpretation of agnatic succession is blatant synthesis and OR. For this to be a workable article there would need to be third-party RS discussing the current line of succession--using those terms--that contain all the entries and their positions. JoelleJay (talk) 21:00, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - no existing kingdom means no current rules for succession, rendering such a 'line of succession' WP:OR predicated on an alternative history in which the kingdom and hence its rules persist. Agricolae (talk) 22:12, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete For the reasons stated above. This is very WP:OR and stuff invented and assumed rather than being compiled from fact. doktorb wordsdeeds 07:07, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete as should have been done ages ago. I presume that the claimed line of succession is based on the laws that existed immediately prior to the abolishment of this position. Who's to say that these precise rules would have persisted even if the position did? Even the UK, which has the reputation of being very conservative when it comes to the monarchy, has changed the rules at least twice in the last century (to exclude Edward VIII and any potential descendants and recently to grant equality of the sexes when it comes to succession). This is simply make-believe. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:58, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete , OR fantasy. Smeat75 (talk) 15:11, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 19:47, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I agree that the "Present line of succession" section is problematic, as it represents pure speculation. Even if someone does manage to dig up a source which makes the same speculation I don't think it would be encyclopedic. However this argument doesn't apply to coverage of the line of succession to the actual German throne before its abolition, and this can be an encyclopedic topic, e.g. Succession to the British throne spends a large amount of time discussing historical succession. I think it's reasonable to delete this article though as that's not its intended scope.  Hut 8.5  09:56, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Rename and repurpose as Prussian royal family. Despite the loss of their throne, they remain a nobel family.  The large number of people with blue links points to continuing notability.  Peterkingiron (talk) 13:34, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Why? We already have House of Hohenzollern. TompaDompa (talk) 13:44, 16 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.