Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Popular monarchy


 * 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   keep. Spartaz Humbug! 06:18, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Popular monarchy

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

The article appears to be an attempt at original research, based on an editors discovery that some monarchs are named as ruling a named people rather than a named place. The article then fails to give a verifed reason for the difference,and even if they did knew it does not seem enough to warrant this whole page Utinomen (talk) 22:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. I can't find any usages of the term in this way that aren't copied from this article. There are lot of generic hits that refer to the popularity of various monarchs and monarchies (ie whether people liked them), but nothing I can find concerning the distinction being made here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:21, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. It just needs improvement. It's actually a real term to refer the transfer from the Ancien Régime of France's absolute monarchy based on divine rights to a constitutional monarchy based on the people.--Queen Elizabeth II&#39;s Little Spy (talk) 00:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you have a reliable source for that? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:30, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you mean one other than Kingsley Martin, already cited in the article when you first read it, or other than the tens if not hundreds of French sources that quote Lafayette's words to Louis-Philippe, duc d'Orl&eacute;ans: "Non, ce qu'il faut aujourd'hui au peuple français, c'est un trône populaire entouré d'institutions républicaines, tout-à-fait républicaines."? Uncle G (talk) 01:15, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, no, I meant an online source that we can read easily (I know online sources aren't mandatory, but if we could find one it would certainly help with this discussion). Also, "tens if not hundreds" of French sources aren't really much use if none of them is cited - and what we need is something covering the concept in some detail, not just quoting a sentence from one person (even if that person was a king). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Essentially unsourced. The only citation is for the definition, and even that one isn't readily accessible.  Short version, if one of your titles is "King of the Spanish people" rather than "King of the Spanish land", you're a popular ruler rather than a national ruler.  The most important part of this-- i.e., that the Emperor of France was called  "Emperor of the French People", or the King of Romania called "King of the Romanians"-- isn't sourced at all. Mandsford 01:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, good grief! Pick up The Oxford illustrated history of the British monarchy and read chapter 6.  It's entitled "Popular Monarchy". Uncle G (talk) 01:15, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Please try to assume good faith here - people are just asking for information. If you can provide information, that's great - but people should not be berated for not already knowing it! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:16, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It's okay-- I haven't heard "oh good grief" in a long time. Besides, I think good faith applies to the nomination, since we're all as sincere as Linus's pumpkin patch when saying "keep" or "delete".  I suspect that both Uncle G and I are fans of the works of Schulz, so if he were to say "Mandsford, you blockhead!" I wouldn't get mad. Mandsford 12:58, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * If it's a real term applicable to Louis-Philippe does it apply to all those listed? If not then it is clearly original research, an attempt to apply the term to those that - for whatever other reason - are also styled after a named people--Utinomen (talk) 08:24, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per Uncle G, and as useful for college and high school students, our core readers. Bearian (talk) 21:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. I think this article has potential but needs some work: better description, more explanation, and multiple reliable references. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 01:58, 9 July 2010 (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.