Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alternate successions of the English crown

Alternate successions of the English crown

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article fails WP's policies against original research. While I enjoy alternative history myself, WP is not the place to host what-if speculations. An article on the fact that some people enjoy this as a hobby might be possible, but not the alternative universe research itself. Kitfoxxe (talk) 13:13, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The discussion is still ongoing. More sources have been added(though some deemed unreliable), and more can still be provided(other people such as the article's creator should be asked if they can provide more sources before deletion is even considered). Likewise, the issue that others have raised is NOT Original Research, but rather that the sources are unreliable. 41.133.47.252 (talk) 13:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My objection is not a lack of reliable sources, but that the sources are being used to create an alternative universe where someone else besides Elizabeth is the monarch of England. Kitfoxxe (talk) 13:36, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: this article is an exercise in purely speculative alternative history (and thus falls afoul of WP:CRYSTAL). By its very subject matter it is lacking anything even vaguely resembling mainstream scholarship, and therefore has, and likely will continue to, offer an open invitation for WP:UNDUE weight to the 'tiny minorities' on the WP:FRINGE that promote this or that line of claimants. This leads to inevitable WP:POV-pushing and WP:BATTLEGROUND. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 13:33, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It is only turning into a battleground because some people have pushed their personal opinions, and made personal insults. Likewise, it is not "Creating an alternative universe". Every so-called "Alternative universe" has used sources to show why someone else may have a claim. Perhaps your objection is not to the article itself, nor its structure, but the concept of "someone else besides Elizabeth" having a legitimate claim to be monarch of England? 41.133.47.252 (talk) 15:33, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I would rather suggest that it has become a battleground because a certain individual insisted on offering various conspiracy theories for my skepticism of WP:FRINGE sources (which sources have been dismissed by WP:RSN). This supports my original argument for deletion. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 15:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - WP:CRYSTAL is irrelevant as regards your argument, as this article has nothing to do with "future history". Nobody offered conspiracy theories. I asked why you felt the need to make personal attacks, and derogatory statements, without offering any suggestions as to how the article may possibly be improved? I would disagree with the "purely speculative" part of your argument too, as all three so-called "purely speculative" Lines have links with Reliable Sources.41.133.47.252 (talk) 15:50, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - (i) Alternate history is directly analogous to future history, so the citation of WP:CRYSTAL is relevant. (ii) I refuse to answer your loaded question. (iii) Your assertion that "Lines have links with Reliable Sources" is, at best, questionable. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 16:16, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. The article as it stands is perhaps unsalvageable. I tend to think that the title could, however, be the subject of a useful, well-sourced article. The Jacobite line is well known and can easily be sourced to reliable sources. Beyond that, I think an article dealing with the variety of historically significant alternate or potential claimants to the English throne could in fact be quite useful and interesting - those who were discussed as alternatives to Elizabeth I in 1603, various potential and actual Yorkist claimants after 1485, the Lancastrian claims of various Portuguese and Spanish monarchs, the claims of Arthur of Brittany and his sister, and so on, can easily be found discussed in reliable sources, and could be the subject of an interesting article. I will also say that I think the claim that this is creating an "alternate universe" is ridiculous. The Jacobite claims of the Duke of Bavaria exist in this universe. His aunt recently died, and her obituary in the Telegraph mentioned her father's position as the Jacobite claimant. The Jacobite claim is theoretical, but it is not something which exists in an alternate universe. The Duke of Bavaria is not (de facto) king of England, but he is the genealogical representative of Charles I, and would be king according to the laws in effect in 1688, something which can be confirmed in numerous reliable sources. The problem with this article is OR - original synthesis, in particular - and notability, especially with regard to the non-Jacobite lines. It is not anything to do with alternate universes. john k (talk) 17:07, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This topic is genealogical claims to the English crown diverting from the accepted line of succession at certain historical points, and as such seems encyclopaedic. There is another article to be written about actual claims and claimants who existed in history: these might or might not cover the same ground. For example, the Jacobite succession both exists in genealogical theory and is claimed by certain people today; in a previous era such claims had real-life political implications. Why should we not include these? This is quite different from alternate history. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 19:29, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Wikipedia is not a repository of speculative alternative history supported by debunked unreliable sources. Ironholds (talk) 19:49, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But are you saying that any article on this topic must necessarily be "speculative alternative history" or simply that this one is? If the former, then your position is untenable: genealogy is simply not the same as counterfactual speculation. If the latter, then fix it. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 19:55, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The latter, but it still fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE. If the genealogical lines truly are notable, they can have a presence in the royal houses/ancestors of those people articles, which in most cases already exist. There is no need to group them together like this. Ironholds (talk) 20:00, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the article as it stands is that it's based on too many assumptions and too much synthesis of sources. Whilst we don't automatically delete anything that's not directly sourced, the information does need to be something that no-one would reasonably dispute. In this case, the information is open to dispute, particularly on whether or not you include female succession. Should reliable sources be found which cover these alternate lines of succession, by all means include that (provided the article makes clear who is claiming what). However, as it stands, the only line that is covered in a reliable source is the one in the Channel 4 programme. Therefore, as it stands, I suggest we merge this article to Britain's Real Monarch and only include the line of succession proposed in the programme (as shown here). The other lines of succession might be suitable for a transwiki to Wikiversity. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 20:14, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The Jacobite line can easily be sourced to numerous reliable sources. On the talk page I noted that the line up through 1911 can be sourced to the 1911 Britannica article about Jacobitism, and that all but the current claimant are at least mentioned in that article. Noel McFerran's website includes an article by the 19th century genealogist Ruvigny tracing the line to the turn of the last century or so. Plenty of sources mentioning the more recent claimants can also be found - Crown Prince Ruprecht's claim, for instance, is mentioned in the recent Telegraph obituary of his daughter. In a Yahoo groups post I stumbled upon via google, Mr. McFerran has also listed a number of articles in the mainstream press describing either Albrecht or Franz as the Jacobite claimant. The idea that the "Britain's Real Monarch" line is somehow better sourced than the Jacobite line is ridiculous. The former was the subject of a single, mostly specious from what I can gather, TV documentary. The Jacobite line has been known and followed with some degree of interest continuously since 1688. I suspect that one can probably find contemporary references to the Jacobite claims of each and every Jacobite claimant. john k (talk) 09:53, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it is a notable subject and yes the article could certainly do with improvement. But there have been several wars fought over some of these claims, the latest as recently as 1746 and it is clearly notable, though somewhat incomplete with Monmouth and several other branches omitted. I saw a TV program recently which traced the Plantagenet line to someone in Australia. Ϣere SpielChequers 20:39, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant delete. The alternate theories seem pretty well grounded in principle, and it ought to be noted in some appropriate place that they exist; but the succession after the first few generations is trivia. (If Henry Pole or Anne Stanley had obtained the crown, Lord Loudoun or Lord Jersey would not be king because he wouldn't exist: his ancestors would not have made the same marraiges.) —Tamfang (talk) 00:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The main reason given for the deletion nomination is "original research" - but that just isn't accurate. The Jacobite/Stuart descent line is well-known and recorded in dozens of books. Both the Clarence and Brandon cases have been written about, most notably by the doyen of royal genealogy (just deceased this past month) William Addams Reitwiesner. The article could be improved, particularly with better sources, but that could be said for 95% of Wikipedia articles. Noel S McFerran (talk) 03:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Noel - I've always found Reitwiesner's materials to be quite interesting and accurate, but I was uncertain whether he can be considered a reliable source in the sense meant on wikipedia. Is there anything that can be brought to bear on this issue? His essay on the Brandon line, for instance, seems to be well-researched and accurate, but it was self-published on Reitwiesner's own website. He wrote books on genealogy that were published, but generally by rather obscure presses. What are we to do with such things? john k (talk) 09:53, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, the good news is that I've confirmed there are reliable sources on the Jacobite line. The bad news is that I found the reliable sources from Jacobite succession (at least, that article seems to have been cared for enough for an unreliable sources to have been challenged by now), which means we've got a messy overlap between the two articles. However, this is now definitely a a debate for content/sourcing/merging. Keep, merge, rename or redirect but Not delete. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable fringe theories. Bearian (talk) 21:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Jacobite line has always been notable; the Clarence line became notable with Britain's Real Monarch. Perhaps limit mention of other lines to people who actively claimed the crown or were considered potential claimants such as Arbella Stuart and the De la Poles. Jess Cully (talk) 07:33, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not OR--there is a great deal of documentation available, especially for some parts of this. Even if this is regarded as alternate-worlds, rather than history, alternate worlds ca be notable if they are discussed enough in the secondary literature, as this is. DGG ( talk ) 00:44, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:11, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I obviously do not understand why this has been Relisted. It seems to be a pretty clear Keep to me. If the Administrator desires consensus, he is clearly unaware of the goings-on here. Pretty much everyone has voted to keep, citing Reliable Sources. A couple of people have stated that the article could sue further Sources, plus have made suggestions s to possibly reorganizing the article. The only one seeming to object is Hrafn, yet he has made his position clear, including much usage of personal insults. This nomination should have been removed, and effortand energy instead focused on possibly tidying up the article a bit. 41.133.47.252 (talk) 11:11, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]