Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of current Indian pretenders


 * 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.  Wifione  Message 14:39, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

List of current Indian pretenders

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This is nominally a list of "Indian pretenders". There are two problems with this "list". The first is that, as discussed on the talk page, it appears that the very concept of there being "pretenders" is original research advanced by one user's interpretation of primary sources (Indian law), while numerous secondary sources state that all of the titles where abolished and thus have no validity. The second problem is that the list is a blatant WP:BLP violation, because all of its sources are self-published genealogical websites. In the discussion at Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 103, it was found that such websites do not meet the requirements of WP:BLPSPS, and, as such, may not be used to support claims about living people. As such, there actually is no list here. Note that I am not saying that this needs to be "cleaned up" and "sourced better". I'm saying it is entirely lacking in legitimate sources for any of the actual people on the list. Perhaps there is space in Wikipedia (either standalone or in a section of some article) about the idea of ex-royalty in India, but there is no space for an unsourced BLP list. Finally, note that User:Night w has already asked on the talk page for this to be userfied, but I must strongly urge the closing admin (assuming this is deleted) to not do so, because WP:BLP applies in all namespaces, so this BLP-violating list cannot be hosted anywhere on Wikipedia. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:11, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete under G7, if the talk page can be disregarded. Qwyrxian, please redact the "first problem" as that is not "my interpretation"—it is cited in the article to a secondary source.  Night w   04:08, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Article is NOT eligible for G7 Speedy Delete as you are not the only substantive contributor to the talk page - sorry! But we can probably delete it on other grounds. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:07, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - As Qwyrxian points out above, none of the (multitude) of sources are reliable because they are all either primary sources (dictionary entries, Indian constitution) or unreliable (genealogy sites). Without sources, the text on the face of it is both (a) original research and (b) dealing with a topic which is fundamentally POV.  (An example of the same material covered in an NPOV way might be "list of current claimants to Indian thrones" or suchlike, including the successful claimants, or "list of unrecognised claimants to Indian thrones", with the caveat that the list would have to include only people who are themselves notable or it would simply be an endless list of the mentally ill.) - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:07, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * How does the definition of claimant differ from that of pretender? They mean exactly the same thing, except that pretender is the terminology used in contexts of royalty.  Night w   11:33, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * "Pretender" makes a judgement about the strength and validity of their claim, "claimant" does not. You could certainly use "pretender", you'd just need to be able to source an overwhelming consensus of reliable sources rejecting their claim for each claimant.  That's probably possible for most; for some who have adherents who support their claim, maybe not (from their perspective, they're the rightful claimant and the current seat is the pretender). - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:10, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Wait, you've misunderstood the definition of pretender being used here. They're all abolished thrones so there's no incumbent to contest the claim with. They're all undoubtedly the rightful claimants.  Night w   15:25, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Let me go through the sources used here:
 * The Last Nizam: An Indian Prince in the Australian Outback - This comes from a biography of Karan Singh, used to support his current political standing and status claims.
 * Several dictionaries and books for referencing - For defining things, but doesn't support notability of the topic.
 * The Royal Ark - A personal website used for supporting passing of laws and family histories, among other things. Although the website's creator does list sources, they are not specifically attributed to the statements on the website, making fact-checking tedious, if not impossible.
 * Genealogical Gleanings - A genealogy website that attributes several, if not all of its listings to The Golden Book of India (why not just cite the book instead of the website?). However, looking at the introduction of the book, it reads the following:
 * No official authority whatever attaches to this work, or to any statement in it.
 * If that's not a textbook example of unreliability, you can call me crazy.
 * Almanach de Bruxelles - Inaccessible except to subscribers, and only attributed to one of the individuals listed on the page.
 * Princes of Arcot website - Primary source, no substantive evidence / sourcing found.
 * The Maharajah of Jodhpur: The Legacy Lives On.... - This film is apparently source material for someone's claim to fame. But it's unclear whether it is a documentary.  The film's synopsis (written by Anonymous on IMDB, of course) reads the following:
 * The Maharaja of Jodhpur' is an exclusive documentation of the life of one of India's most distinguished royals...It's the story of his quest to reinvent his role and relevance in democratic, republican India and of his struggle to preserve a glorious way of life.
 * To me, this hardly like an NPOV piece, so I don't put a lot of weight onto this film as a reliable source.
 * The Royal Family of Kutlehar website - Another primary source page.
 * There are a few other decent newspaper articles, but only two of them really discuss a legitimate claim in detail . Without more consistent sources like these ones, there just isn't enough material for this topic. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 07:57, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you'll find those references to The Golden Book of India are just attributed to some dates. The website actually clusters all of its sources together like The Royal Ark does.   Night w   08:09, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 09:59, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. This page is based on original research.  The reliable sources have interpreted the 26th Amendment of India's Constitution to have abolished all titles, privileges, and remunerations (privy purses) associated with princely India.  Moreover, the term "pretender" is not used in the reliable secondary literature for descendants of Indian princes.   Claiming that all but five privy purses were abolished is as ludicrous as claiming, "John Smith is the pretender to the office of Secretary of State of the Confederate States of America because if you examine the text of Lee's surrender, you'll notice ...."  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:33, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Speaking of which (though I'm not sure why as it's entirely irrelevant to this article), you haven't provided any sources that show they were all abolished as you claim, nor have you responded to the sources I provided showing exceptions.  Night w   13:57, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - for the reasons of original research & BLP violations already referred to by others above, but also because this simply is not a notable topic: the people listed are "pretenders" to thing that do not exist any more & any claims made are pure vanity. - Sitush (talk) 14:32, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - WP:OR.Bunser (talk) 20:27, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep: however many unreliable sources are quoted (unreliable on this point, at least) the princely (to use the traditional shorthand) titles were never abolished, and this is a very interesting page. I do accept that there is a problem with the word "pretenders", which implies some active pursuit of thrones which no longer exist. Some of those listed have even stated that they make no claim to princely status. If not deleted, a change of name is needed. Moonraker (talk) 02:04, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:OR and WP:POV based on dubious sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:46, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - as above WP:OR and WP:POV. created seems for vanity. Also un-reliable sources, as discussed above.Jethwarp (talk) 13:33, 16 November 2011 (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.