- 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 Procedural close, please open a new AFD discussion.. Liz Read! Talk! 02:47, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Popular monarchy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Was nominated for deletion in 2010 (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Popular monarchy). Has had OR and lack of source tags since at least 2010 and after having 8 years to resolve issues, has simply never been done. As editors have remarked: "this entire page is based on a misconception based on a random idiosyncratic article published in 2005. Not encyclopedic", and "I really don't see much that is salvageable here". Any information that is remotely encyclopedic is already covered in other articles, such as the Martin Kingsley article, or articles on royal titles. It was also nominated for deletion eight years ago and was kept only in the hopes that it could be improved, which it clearly has not. trackratte (talk) 18:10, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This AfD was never transcluded to a logpage, meaning nobody ever saw it, commented on it, or closed it (ergo it is still open).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jp×g 04:02, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 05:36, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete OR indeed and impressively longstanding a piece of OR it is. Also I hate this style of proto-referencing. I mean, who the hell are Upchick, Clissold and White? Unverifiable cruft is what we have here and it needs to go. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:47, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete prose seems to be predicated on a distinction drawn in one paper by one scholar, not a scholarly consensus. Remaining citations lack sufficient information to have any value. List is largely WP:OR. Though the shift from 'King of the (people)' to 'King of (country)' has been commented upon with respect to how a nation-state viewed itself, the different titulature can likewise represent nothing but the whim of the monarch or scribe. Grouping an early-medieval tribal leader with a modern monarch trying to make some political statement, just becasue the two appear with the same syntactic titular style, is apples and oranges. Agricolae (talk) 20:18, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but prune. The first modern Greek monarchy was King of Greece, but the second was king of the Hellenes. In France, the traditional title was King of France, but when Louis XVIII lost his throne to Louis Phillipe, the title became King of the French. This is a real distinction, but I do not think it is useful to encumber the article with a load of medieval examples, particularly English ones where the title might vary from one charter to another. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:04, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Peterkingiron. The fact that the article's cited using a weird old format is, well, annoying, but it seems quite trivial to fix. There are a few sources cited, and not just the one guy. jp×g 18:18, 23 July 2022 (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.