Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/People in the line of succession to the British 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Owen&times; &#9742;  18:08, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

People in the line of succession to the British throne

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Line of succession to the British throne was merged and redirected in 2015 as a result of Talk:Succession to the British throne/Archive 2. This page is reliant on a single source that does not in fact list people in line. It lists descendants of the Electress Sophia who would be in line if they renounced their own religion, became Anglicans and adopted British nationality. In reality, for anyone so far down the line to inherit the British throne, the world would have had to endure a catastrophic disaster of such monumental proportions that it is extremely unlikely that the monarchy would exist. This content is not suitable for an encyclopedia because it is one wikipedian's selection of whom they consider to be the notable descendants of Sophia that is not representative of a wide-base of scholarly sources. DrKay (talk) 10:10, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. DrKay (talk) 10:10, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and United Kingdom.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  10:39, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete The article is nothing more than WP:OR. Keivan.f  Talk 12:21, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep All your concerns would be satisfied by changing the title to List of living descendants of Sophia of Hanover. Also, the selection of living people is formulaic and not subjective, and thus does not fall under WP:OR, and further sources can certainly be added to refine the listing; these are reasons to improve the article, not delete it.
 * Also, the 2015 discussion is not relevant; the merged article only contained the short list of descendants of George V, and the outcome of the discussion was in fact to keep text referring to Reitwiesner's list. Lastly, your nomination itself is factually inaccurate: they need to be Protestant and not specifically Anglican, and I don't think there's a legal provision that they be British citizens; George I was certainly not when he ascended.  Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 19:20, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Utter nonsense. George was naturalized by the Sophia Naturalization Act 1705 before his accession. DrKay (talk) 19:57, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'll strike that part, but the other arguments stand. Do you have a source to support that, under current law, the monarch needs to be specifically Anglican and a British citizen to be in the line of succession?  Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 00:31, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * What does this have to do with anything? Are you saying that we must maintain a list of people that has been put together randomly just because one of them that is non-British or non-Anglican might have a chance of ascending the throne of the United Kingdom? Well, that requires the mass elimination of the first 60 in line which is unlikely to happen any time soon. The whole list is nothing more than hypothetical cruft. Keivan.f  Talk 02:43, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * There is nothing hypothetical about this. The list of people is firmly set in law.  Whether it will ever actually be used is irrelevant to that.  Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 03:52, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It is hypothetical when we don't have secondary sources grouping all these people together based on what their place could have been if the line of succession were to be extended that far. At the moment it's just a genealogical entry and WP:SYNTHESIS. Keivan.f  Talk 06:14, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It is nonsense to state "if the line of succession were to be extended that far." There is a law that specifies the complete line of succession, and it does extend to everyone specified in the law.  Your assertion that this later parts of the line of succession will never be used itself violates WP:CRYSTAL.  Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 02:07, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * A law that you are interpreting yourself and then drawing conclusions about who could potentially be in this lengthy line of succession that no secondary source actually covers (i.e. WP:SYNTHESIS). The presumption that all these people could also drop dead together which would then force the Parliament to go look for a potential monarch from descendants of someone who died 310 years ago is in fact WP:CRYSTAL. Keivan.f  Talk 06:14, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It is factually incorrect to represent this as "a law that you are interpreting yourself". The article is based on an independent secondary source.  There are many other secondary sources on specific branches that could be added.  WP:SYNTHESIS allows routine calculations, which I believe applies to extracting living members from a list of people, a task that is completely mechanical and allows for very little personal interpretation.  I honestly don't know what you're trying to say here. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 05:43, 23 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom and Keivan.f. RobinCarmody (talk) 21:20, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. 98.228.137.44 (talk) 00:20, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep: This article does appear to violate WP:OR. However, if the editors of this article wish to improve it by adding reliable and diverse citations and sources to an acceptable degree, then I think the article could remain. @Antony-22's suggestion to rename to article to List of living descendants of Sophia of Hanover would be another good solution to the issue raised by the AfD, as the article's current title does feel quite misleading. Mjks28 (talk) 13:15, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Largely WP:OR/WP:SYNTH, and inevitably so in the absence of reliable secondary sources that extend beyond the top 50 or so in line. Rosbif73 (talk) 08:50, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete per Articles with a single source and Articles for deletion/Karin Vogel. Celia Homeford (talk) 14:18, 24 June 2024 (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.