Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swedish order of precedence


 * 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The result was   withdrawn by nominator. Canley (talk) 05:59, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Swedish order of precedence

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unsourced for almost 3 years. Official governmental precedence is no longer a current practice in Sweden. WP:DEL-REASON #6 & #7 apply - thorough sourcing searches reveal that no sources exist for an article about a ranking which is made to look current but actually no longer is used. Sources exist for very old Swedish ranking lists, which is not the subject of this article. SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:54, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per SergeWoodzings arguments. WP:BLP might apply, but I'm doubtful about that. Besides, I personally don't think that WP:GNG applies to this limited list. Sjö (talk) 10:34, 5 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:19, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:21, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:09, 5 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep. While there is probably no need for individuals to be listed, the offices they hold should be listed. There are ample sources in Swedish (e.g. ) to write an article about order of precedence in Sweden, historical or current, and there are many other articles about national orders of precedence, so this cannot be said to be a non-notable topic, even if the current article is a poor one (note that it was sourced once, although the link is now dead). Is there, incidentally, any evidence that "Official governmental precedence is no longer a current practice in Sweden"? Given most countries have such an order of precedence, this would be highly unusual, especially in a monarchy with a history as long as Sweden's. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:21, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes there is evidence that "Official governmental precedence is no longer a current practice in Sweden", namely the utter lack of any reliably sourced info about the existence of such a thing. Nothwithstanding monarchy, democracy has evolved in Sweden to a point where any ranking of this kind is completely obsolete (that's why none is published any longer anywhere), so obsolete that not even an article about it's distant past is relevant to an encyclopedia. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:59, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Since when has failure to find evidence equated to evidence? Has a search been made in printed literature? Given even longstanding parliamentary democracies like the United Kingdom and republics like the United States have orders of precedence, I really don't think your second sentence is at all credible as it appears to be making out that Sweden is a special case because its "democracy" has "evolved" beyond the point of such things (bizarrely despite being a monarchy, the very epitome of precedence). I very much doubt it. Your comment that something that happened in the "distant past" (hardly, in any case, given that the article was apparently sourced to the Court Calendar in 2010) is not relevant to an encyclopaedia is even more bizarre. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:17, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Since this became policy: WP:DEL-REASON #7: "Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed". I will not stoop to using attack words like "bizarre" over and over, but I will say that it seems quite unreasonable to demand that all printed literature be searched. Anything viable about this, nowadays, can confidently be counted on to be found on the Internet. Basic knowledge of Sweden today and its anything-but-normal monarchy (where e.g. the king declines to sit on the throne and promotes and then demotes his grandchildren back and forth) is all that's needed to recognize the valdity of my remarks and those of Sjö above. It may even be required in order to make a reasonable vote and continuing dogged argument here, even by an administrator. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:03, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I have cited reliable sources. You have ignored them and claimed that because they relate to the past they are not relevant. Anything viable about this, nowadays, can confidently be counted on to be found on the Internet. And this is utter rubbish. Wikipedia does not only rely on online sources. It is perfectly reasonable to expect material to appear in print sources that are not on the internet. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:31, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The sources you have cited are not for the current article called "Swedish order of precedence" but for another non-existing article about past times such as Historical order of preference in Sweden.
 * We are not obliged to search offline sources.
 * The current article as worded is unsourced and there are no sources to be found.
 * I don't think I've ever seen an administrator on English Wikipedia resort to totally unneeded attack terminology like "bizarre" and "utter rubbish". Would be nice not to have to see that. Please try to be civil! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:51, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:25, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:25, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment -- Most of the articles in Swedish cited by Necrothesp appear to be historical orders of precedence from past times. Some of these are from the Swedish WP, and could probably be translated to provide an English WP article.  However, I have to say that I did not see anything about the royal family in those sources.  Peterkingiron (talk) 18:12, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The question here is only "can a reasonable article be written about the topic?" Clearly it can. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:31, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think that a reasonable article can be written about the topic as the scope of the article is today, i.e. a very limited application of the general topic of order of precedence. Perhaps it's possible to write an article about the Swedish order of precedence today and in historic times, but right now I think that WP:TNT is a better alternative than allowing this sorry unsourced text to remain. Sjö (talk) 07:31, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   08:45, 12 March 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Obviously, the entire content of this article has to go. It consists solely of unsourced claims about a hierarchy of living people. That said, there is quite a lot written about the topic, so I am not convinced the topic is non-notable. So how do we remove everything from the article while we keep the article? If nobody can come up with a solution, I'm team delete. Surtsicna (talk) 01:08, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, xinbenlv  Talk, Remember to "ping" me 05:36, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * KEEP Just like the many other order of precedence articles, this is a valid list article. As for the nominator mentioning "Official governmental precedence is no longer a current practice in Sweden", I'd like to point out that the order of precedence reads: "A person's position in an order of precedence is not necessarily an indication of functional importance, but rather an indication of ceremonial or historical relevance; for instance, it may dictate where dignitaries are seated at formal dinners."  So it is still a thing.   D r e a m Focus  05:29, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * None of that is valid in Sweden today. It's so obsolete that this article, inferring that it is not obsolete, is actually a hoax. That's what unsourced articles are sometimes. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:51, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You know how easy it is? Just say it's obsolete in the article. Job done. No idea why people make things so hard! -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:12, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * No source for that, except the common knowledge of people who know Sweden. No source for the (quote:) "current" list either. Question now is whether obsolete orders of precedence warrant an article. If so, I can withdraw this, rename the article "Former ..." and update it accordingly. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:22, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Of course they do. Wikipedia is not just an encyclopaedia of current culture. Neither do we need to rename the article (we don't do that - most historical topics are "former"). Just say so in the lede. As I said in the first place! -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:52, 24 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Withdrawal As long as the article in no way infers any longer that there is a current order of precedence in place in Sweden (as I have adjusted it now) this deletion request can be withdrawn for my part. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:53, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You tried to erase the majority of the article and I reverted you.  Do you have any reference proving there is no order of precedence?  If the king dies, doesn't the eldest prince take the title of king?  This is just for the royal ranking system, obviously no one believes a democracy could be replaced by a king for any reason these days.  You can add a disclaimer to that notice if you think people are confused.  Also the article should probably have modern precedence for the democratic heads, and then historical precedence for the royalty.   D r e a m Focus  19:24, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Anyone who reads all this and the article's talk section may understand what we're trying to do. There is no current order of precedence at all in Sweden, and thus no sources can be found anywhere that there is. There is an order of succession to the throne in the constitution, but that's not the same thing at all. The article's unsourced list is presented as "current" which is patently incorrect. That fallacy - a fake list - has now been reinstated. That's neither constructive nor encyclopedic. There is normally no reference to give for something that does not exist. The fact that no sources substantiate its existence as a current list should tell us something. I now have no option but to strike my withdrawal. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:04, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I no longer have any objection to the article as it now has been adjusted, and I hope it's left that way. My only essential objection was to "current". --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:21, 26 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep - once notable, always notable. Bearian (talk) 21:11, 28 March 2020 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.