Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Line of succession to the former throne of Bharatpur

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. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:07, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Line of succession to the former throne of Bharatpur

[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)

No sources for this list verifying the people and positions in it are accurate, nor anything demonstrating the "current succession line" to this subsidiary throne abolished 70 years ago is even a concept covered by RS. It lists multiple private, non-notable people without citation, violating WP:BLPNAME. JoelleJay (talk) 23:22, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. JoelleJay (talk) 23:22, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. JoelleJay (talk) 23:22, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. JoelleJay (talk) 23:22, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. JoelleJay (talk) 23:22, 1 August 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 princely state itself doesn't even exist anymore. TompaDompa (talk) 23:52, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above Spiderone 10:34, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devokewater @ 10:44, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. State does not exist anymore and content on living persons needs to be verified.--Hippeus (talk) 11:42, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article does not cite RS and I don't believe this could be verifiably sourced and not contain substantial WP:OR | WP:SYNTH. // Timothy :: talk 13:11, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Restructure -- I would suggest that a series of articles should be created for Indian Principalities cognate to those for British peerages, where there is a list if successive holders or the title. The maharajahs have not ruled since 1948 and many principalities were in practice controlled before independence by a Resident appointed by the British Raj. However the successors will retain the title of Maharajah, even though Indira Gandhi abolished their privy purses in 1960s (?), so that it is now largely an empty title. British peerage articles name the heir apparent and sometimes the next heir, but remoter claimants are probably NN and should not be listed. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:33, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Either Delete or Restructure, both for the reasons mentioned above. Either of these two options is fine by me. Futurist110 (talk) 06:47, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OUTCOMES. While this could be sourced, the growing consensus has been to eliminate lists about successions of countries that don't exist anymore and monarchies that have been overthrown for one reason or another. Bearian (talk) 15:12, 6 August 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.