Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Line of succession to the former Ethiopian 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. The number of people involved in the discussion is a little thin for a definitive close, but it's already been on AfD for a month, so I don't see much point in relisting. The arguments seem to boil down to "the topic is a good one, but the article lacks sufficient reliable sources". So, I'm going to call this a delete, but with no prejudice for recreation if the new version is better sourced. If anybody wants a copy of the old article for reference, I'll be happy to userfy it for you. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:32, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've moved this to Draft:Line of succession to the former Ethiopian throne per user request. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:30, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Line of succession to the former Ethiopian throne

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

Unsourced original research. Please note that the Crown Council of Ethiopia explicitly dissociates itself from the principal of primogeniture at its website http://www.ethiopiancrown.org/ and does not accept any line of succession as presented in this article. DrKiernan (talk) 18:00, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Obviously encyclopedic material, no cause for deletion which is an extreme remedy for sending the Ethiopian Line of Succession down the memory hole (it seems every other country with a former monarchy is allowed to have an article for line of succession.) It is also worth noting that this is in no way covered by "Original research" which is a wikipedia house term used strictly for "something that wikipedians made up with no source". This does not fall into that category; in fact the rules for the Ethiopian Line of Succession (as duly mentioned) are explicitly and unambiguously stated in the Imperial Ethiopian Constitution of 1955 and this was not made up by any wikipedians. We basically have to keep this one, anyone's personal feelings about it aside. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 22:42, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Query:In principle I agree that a recognized pretenders' line of succession can be encyclopedic, but in light of the nominator's comment above that the Crown Council does not accept this line, are there any sources to support the content on this page? --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:52, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know where the nominator found any such statement from the CCE dissociating itself on that website, it is not on the mainpage he linked and I find it rather hard to imagine them actually saying anything of that sort... Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 00:56, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just click on the "Crown Council" button: "Historically, although Emperors of Ethiopia have nominated their candidate for successor as Crown Prince, it has never been the case in the country that the process of primogeniture — right of succession going to the eldest son — has been automatically accepted. Indeed, the succession of the eldest son to the Throne has proven the exception rather than the rule." ... "the Crown Council's function in endorsing or ratifying the elevation of a proper candidate was clearly spelled out in the Constitution as adopted in 1955". See the quotes from Richard Pankhurst (academic): (A Social History of Ethiopia. p.27) "Though the principle of primogeniture was to some extent operative the throne could normally be inherited by any of the ruler's male offspring." Also, compare with other African monarchies such as Lesotho, Swaziland, Ashanti, Buganda, etc. These are elective monarchies not hereditary ones. Salvageable information from here can be merged into Emperor of Ethiopia#Succession without the need for a separate article. DrKiernan (talk) 10:04, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are tragically misunderstanding. The ECC does not "dissociate" itself from anything with that observation. The 1955 (and 1931) Imperial Constitution defines the Order of Succession as well as the Crown Council and while the Communist Derg claimed for themselves the authority to rescind it, their means of doing this is regarded as illegitimate and extra-Constitutional to say the least and the Crown Council still operates and exists only because of that Constitution. What you see there is not the principle of the Crown Council, it is a description of the way things historically were BEFORE they were spelled out in that Constitution, before the reign of Emperor Haile Selassie I. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:20, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It says explicitly: "The Crown Council ... is today ... the body which is constitutionally-charged with presenting the selected candidate for accession to the Throne for approval by the Ethiopian people. ... Today, the Crown Council has made it clear that it will not present any nomination for succession to the Throne. ... At all times in Ethiopian history, succession has been required to be approved, either by the church or by other powers." I don't see how else one is to interpret "today" and "at all times". There are no sources for the line as given in this article. It is therefore original research. DrKiernan (talk) 13:54, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:11, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:11, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So where is the contradiction? They are constitutionally appointed with ensuring that the candidate is eligible according to the explicit rules in that same Constitution, for example they have to make sure he is Orthodox and his wife is Orthodox. The Line of Succession according to these rules still exists and is maintained (and is encyclopedic, and not concocted by wikipedians), however, the council clearly does not find it expedient to offer anyone for the vacant throne in this time. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:26, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Is http://www.ethiopiancrown.org/ even relevant? The article doesn't list it as a reference. In fact, it doesn't list any references at all (though, if it did, WP:PRIMARY comes to mind regarding ethiopiancrown.org). Other than the nominator's original comment, the rest of this discussion seems neither here nor there if the article doesn't meet WP:V. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 16:12, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:11, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and add more references. OccultZone (Talk) 10:45, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:11, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not seeing significant coverage and reliable sourcing, which are both necessary. Neutrality^talk 23:15, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely unsourced, making it fail WP:V in addition to WP:N. Sandstein 11:38, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is not actually unsourced, because it cites two Ethiopian constitutions. This is a primary source. There is additional material that doesn't appear to be something that would be written in a constitution. There is no reasonable way for readers to verify the information in this article. This appears to be a topic that we want on Wikipedia, so Userfy or Incubate are suggested. Unscintillating (talk) 14:12, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There should be no debate about what would "appear to be something that would be written" in the 1955 Revised Imperial Constitution, we have the complete official text in Amharic, French and English to verify that's what it indeed says. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:17, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any other country's monarchy or former monarchy being singled out for this "does it really exist" snobbery by deletionists, I think I will raise this as a case of WP:BIAS. I'm not assuming good faith here whatsoever; that's gone right out the window now because the true reasons one would wish to censor this information are transparently political. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:20, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated earlier, I think is a potentially encyclopedic topic, but what is the source for the list of names? I couldn't find one. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:26, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.