- 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. Tone 14:43, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Line of succession to the former Greek throne
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Line of succession to the former Greek throne ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This throne has been defunct since 1973.
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 the monarchy doesn't exist anymore. See also
WP:NOTGENEALOGY. There are also
WP:BLP concerns about the people who are listed here, including two minors.
So basically, the same reasons as the previous 32 lines of succession 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 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32). TompaDompa ( talk) 13:53, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. TompaDompa ( talk) 13:53, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. TompaDompa ( talk) 13:53, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. TompaDompa ( talk) 13:53, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- Question: if the United Kingdom ceased to exist tomorrow (or changed its government), I don't think it would be controversial that Succession to the British throne would still be a notable topic ( WP:NOTTEMP), even if it had to be renamed. I see several "former" throne succession articles at AfD -- would none of them have been notable topics when the throne was current? Probably, it seems. So how to handle the article, because it shouldn't be deleted. I do agree that it seems strange to keep playing a fantasy succession game with people born after 1973 being listed. Perhaps it would be best to maintain an article about the line of succession as it existed in 1973? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:06, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- The current line of succession is defined by the current legal framework of the nation in question. Were that to change (such as when the UK changed from male-preference primogeniture to strict primogeniture) then the succession order changes, and the order the day before the change is superseded, just as is the case when there is a royal birth or death. As such, lines of succession are more 'dynamic lists' than noteworthy topics representing historical events that are NOTTEMP. Pre-change status becomes obsolete and no longer noteworthy, or else we would need to produce a separate line of succession for every time point in history where there was a change in law, a birth, death, abdication, etc. The list representing the current line of succession after abolition of the monarchy would be: nobody - a null list and we don't do that. A list of what the succession now would be had the change not occurred is alternative history - the change did occur.
Agricolae (
talk)
21:58, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- Most of the article
Succession to the British throne discusses the rules for succession, their development over time and controversies they have caused. This would still be encyclopedic information even if the UK abolished the monarchy tomorrow, so the article would continue to exist. This one isn't as well developed but there is still some content about the succession rules which isn't covered anywhere else. We are
supposed to consider alternatives for preserving that content instead of deleting it.
Hut 8.5
06:33, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- The changes in rules are encyclopedic. The precise order of succession at any given time (beyond the immediate heir) is not. These pages are worse, though. They present an order of succession that was never operative under any contemporary legal framework. Sure, bits here and there might be shifted to other articles, but there is not necessarily a single target nor is the core aspect of the article, the supposed 'current' line of succession, appropriate anywhere. Agricolae ( talk) 17:06, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- Most of the article
Succession to the British throne discusses the rules for succession, their development over time and controversies they have caused. This would still be encyclopedic information even if the UK abolished the monarchy tomorrow, so the article would continue to exist. This one isn't as well developed but there is still some content about the succession rules which isn't covered anywhere else. We are
supposed to consider alternatives for preserving that content instead of deleting it.
Hut 8.5
06:33, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- The current line of succession is defined by the current legal framework of the nation in question. Were that to change (such as when the UK changed from male-preference primogeniture to strict primogeniture) then the succession order changes, and the order the day before the change is superseded, just as is the case when there is a royal birth or death. As such, lines of succession are more 'dynamic lists' than noteworthy topics representing historical events that are NOTTEMP. Pre-change status becomes obsolete and no longer noteworthy, or else we would need to produce a separate line of succession for every time point in history where there was a change in law, a birth, death, abdication, etc. The list representing the current line of succession after abolition of the monarchy would be: nobody - a null list and we don't do that. A list of what the succession now would be had the change not occurred is alternative history - the change did occur.
Agricolae (
talk)
21:58, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete The throne has been abolished a long time, the notion succession to a non-existent thing is notable is just plain wrong. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 17:06, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- Merge to Monarchy of Greece. The "Law of succession" part is about the law of succession when the monarchy still existed, that would be a suitable addition to that article. Some of the remaining content could probably be merged too. Hut 8.5 17:55, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Smeat75 ( talk) 19:18, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per nom -- Devokewater (talk) 19:27, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete - the 1974 constitution of Greece establishes it as a presidential parliamentary democracy, and subsequent amendments have not changed this constitutional definition. There is no current legal framework under which a line of succession can be authentically deduced (which act would be WP:OR anyhow), and any hypothetical restoration would not be bound by historical rules or current whims within the former ruling family over who is and is not eligible. Agricolae ( talk) 21:58, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete, no merge. The encyclopedic part of this topic (the line of descent during the time when it was meaningful) is better covered by List of heirs to the Greek throne, and a redirect would not make sense because the title of the nominated article makes clear that it is only about the post-monarchal fantasy. — David Eppstein ( talk) 23:30, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete - as there's no throne to be in line of succession for. GoodDay ( talk) 16:04, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
- Merge to Monarchy of Greece. Any useful content can be become a postscript to that article. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:14, 29 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.
- 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. Tone 14:43, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Line of succession to the former Greek throne
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Line of succession to the former Greek throne ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This throne has been defunct since 1973.
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 the monarchy doesn't exist anymore. See also
WP:NOTGENEALOGY. There are also
WP:BLP concerns about the people who are listed here, including two minors.
So basically, the same reasons as the previous 32 lines of succession 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 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32). TompaDompa ( talk) 13:53, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. TompaDompa ( talk) 13:53, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. TompaDompa ( talk) 13:53, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. TompaDompa ( talk) 13:53, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- Question: if the United Kingdom ceased to exist tomorrow (or changed its government), I don't think it would be controversial that Succession to the British throne would still be a notable topic ( WP:NOTTEMP), even if it had to be renamed. I see several "former" throne succession articles at AfD -- would none of them have been notable topics when the throne was current? Probably, it seems. So how to handle the article, because it shouldn't be deleted. I do agree that it seems strange to keep playing a fantasy succession game with people born after 1973 being listed. Perhaps it would be best to maintain an article about the line of succession as it existed in 1973? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:06, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- The current line of succession is defined by the current legal framework of the nation in question. Were that to change (such as when the UK changed from male-preference primogeniture to strict primogeniture) then the succession order changes, and the order the day before the change is superseded, just as is the case when there is a royal birth or death. As such, lines of succession are more 'dynamic lists' than noteworthy topics representing historical events that are NOTTEMP. Pre-change status becomes obsolete and no longer noteworthy, or else we would need to produce a separate line of succession for every time point in history where there was a change in law, a birth, death, abdication, etc. The list representing the current line of succession after abolition of the monarchy would be: nobody - a null list and we don't do that. A list of what the succession now would be had the change not occurred is alternative history - the change did occur.
Agricolae (
talk)
21:58, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- Most of the article
Succession to the British throne discusses the rules for succession, their development over time and controversies they have caused. This would still be encyclopedic information even if the UK abolished the monarchy tomorrow, so the article would continue to exist. This one isn't as well developed but there is still some content about the succession rules which isn't covered anywhere else. We are
supposed to consider alternatives for preserving that content instead of deleting it.
Hut 8.5
06:33, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- The changes in rules are encyclopedic. The precise order of succession at any given time (beyond the immediate heir) is not. These pages are worse, though. They present an order of succession that was never operative under any contemporary legal framework. Sure, bits here and there might be shifted to other articles, but there is not necessarily a single target nor is the core aspect of the article, the supposed 'current' line of succession, appropriate anywhere. Agricolae ( talk) 17:06, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- Most of the article
Succession to the British throne discusses the rules for succession, their development over time and controversies they have caused. This would still be encyclopedic information even if the UK abolished the monarchy tomorrow, so the article would continue to exist. This one isn't as well developed but there is still some content about the succession rules which isn't covered anywhere else. We are
supposed to consider alternatives for preserving that content instead of deleting it.
Hut 8.5
06:33, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- The current line of succession is defined by the current legal framework of the nation in question. Were that to change (such as when the UK changed from male-preference primogeniture to strict primogeniture) then the succession order changes, and the order the day before the change is superseded, just as is the case when there is a royal birth or death. As such, lines of succession are more 'dynamic lists' than noteworthy topics representing historical events that are NOTTEMP. Pre-change status becomes obsolete and no longer noteworthy, or else we would need to produce a separate line of succession for every time point in history where there was a change in law, a birth, death, abdication, etc. The list representing the current line of succession after abolition of the monarchy would be: nobody - a null list and we don't do that. A list of what the succession now would be had the change not occurred is alternative history - the change did occur.
Agricolae (
talk)
21:58, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete The throne has been abolished a long time, the notion succession to a non-existent thing is notable is just plain wrong. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 17:06, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- Merge to Monarchy of Greece. The "Law of succession" part is about the law of succession when the monarchy still existed, that would be a suitable addition to that article. Some of the remaining content could probably be merged too. Hut 8.5 17:55, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Smeat75 ( talk) 19:18, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per nom -- Devokewater (talk) 19:27, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete - the 1974 constitution of Greece establishes it as a presidential parliamentary democracy, and subsequent amendments have not changed this constitutional definition. There is no current legal framework under which a line of succession can be authentically deduced (which act would be WP:OR anyhow), and any hypothetical restoration would not be bound by historical rules or current whims within the former ruling family over who is and is not eligible. Agricolae ( talk) 21:58, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete, no merge. The encyclopedic part of this topic (the line of descent during the time when it was meaningful) is better covered by List of heirs to the Greek throne, and a redirect would not make sense because the title of the nominated article makes clear that it is only about the post-monarchal fantasy. — David Eppstein ( talk) 23:30, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete - as there's no throne to be in line of succession for. GoodDay ( talk) 16:04, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
- Merge to Monarchy of Greece. Any useful content can be become a postscript to that article. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:14, 29 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.