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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:37, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Line of succession to the former throne of the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This kingdom has been defunct since 1860. This mostly unsourced article (tagged as such for 7 years) looks like unverifiable original research, including about the supposed royal status of living persons (WP:BLP). See also WP:NOTGENEALOGY. Compare Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Line of succession to the former Austro-Hungarian throne for a similar case. Sandstein 12:11, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 12:11, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 12:11, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The level of detail in House of Bourbon-Two Sicilies#Heads of the House since 1861 is sufficient. No need to list multiple descendants in a line of the succession of both current claimants.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 12:18, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per 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 Kingdom itself doesn't even exist anymore. TompaDompa (talk) 12:27, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the point made by Eostrix. Listing multiple non-notable children as "claimants" to a throne abolished 160 years ago is ridiculous, even if there are members of the family living in a parallel pretend world where they can pass "acts" and issue "decrees" on succession law. However, if the ongoing dynastic dispute wasn't covered by another article, I think some sort of WP presence would be DUE as the feuds seem to be reported by secondary sources. Of course, we wouldn't be treating the line as if it was equivalent in power and legitimacy to the line before 1860, and stronger independent sourcing would be required to include any of those minors. JoelleJay (talk) 19:12, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - poorly-sourced presentation of people making up their own rules to succeed to something that doesn't exist. Agricolae (talk) 19:18, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Full of BLP violations and OR. Plus it's UNDUE to have an article speculating about who would hold royal positions in a non existent monarchy abolished since 1860.Smeat75 (talk) 19:09, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to House of Bourbon-Two Sicilies#Heads of the House since 1861. Identifying who are the Pretenders to thrones is of interest, though their chances of succeeding are minimal, though we should not forget that the Pretender to the throne of Spain became its king on the death of Franco. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:05, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but there was a country, Spain, for the pretender to be restored to the throne of. There is no such country as the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies and has not been since 1860. The chances of any "pretender " to a nonexistent throne of a nonexistent country are not minimal, they are nonexistent.Smeat75 (talk) 17:25, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Smeat75:. Not that I am contesting deletion, but revolutions do occur (e.g. Belgian Revolution, Greek War of Independence), and newly formed or recreated countries may seek a king (e.g. Leopold I of Belgium, Otto of Greece who had Komnenos and Laskaris heritage). The pretenders yet have hope, however forlorn, to be an expedient political solution.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 07:42, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thankfully, we have a policy for that. --JBL (talk) 11:22, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The argument that a line of succession to a past kingdom is of value in case a country establishes a monarchy again is predicated on an invalid central assumption. A country can pick anybody they want, and further they can set any succession rules they want (e.g. strict primogeniture vs male-preference primogeniture; distinguishing morganatic marriages or not). Laying out a line of succession for a reestablished monarchy based on the rules of a dead kingdom from a dead era is simply 'what if . . .' philosophizing. Agricolae (talk) 15:17, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTCRYSTAL and Agricolae. It's extremely remote a possibility that Sicily will become a separate country again, and they will call back their monarchy form 160 years ago. If this country still existed, or if it was in the past century, I might be in favor of a keep, but this is not the case. I do not oppose a selective merger or redirect. Bearian (talk) 16:59, 30 July 2020 (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.