Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Principality of Orange-Nassau

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 redirect to House of Orange-Nassau with the option of merging any viable content. The issues with the article appear to be that its title, and possibly framing, do not reflect historical reality. This is a valid argument, but is different than saying that the content does not belong on Wikipedia. Multiple users have suggested that a merger would be acceptable (even if they did not indicate this preference as a bolded !vote), and this argument has consensus. I don't see the purpose in draftification when the intent is to have the content at a different title; also, if we are exploring any form of merger, outright deletion isn't appropriate from the perspective of attribution. Some editors discussed reframing this article as one about the possessions of the House of Orange; this did not gain consensus, but nothing in this discussion precludes a future spinoff so long as the issues with the title and framing are addressed. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:25, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Principality of Orange-Nassau (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

WP:SYNTH. Apart from the fact that this article has been WP:UNSOURCED ever since its creation in February 2010, there are virtually no RS that attest the historical existence of this state.

• Strictly speaking, 'Orange-Nassau' or 'Nassau-Orange' only refers to the House of Orange-Nassau as a family, not to any state. This so-called 'Principality of Orange-Nassau' did not exist as a unified political-territorial-administrative state. Rather, it's a sum of all the House of Orange-Nassau's (or rather: Nassau-Die(t)z's) possessions in 18th-century Germany: the counties of Nassau-Dillenburg, Nassau-Siegen, Nassau-Dietz, Nassau-Hadamar, and a few possessions shared with other houses/the Electorate of Trier. It didn't go beyond a personal union; compare how the Crown of Aragon and Crown of Castile were just a personal union until the Nueva Planta decrees forged them into the Kingdom of Spain; such a forging never happened to these German possessions of Orange-Nassau.
• Nor did it have am identifiable single capital. With poor support, three different cities are alleged to have been the 'capital' of this alleged 'Principality of Orange-Nassau': Dillenburg, Die(t)z and Den Haag (The Hague). (I joked that as a compromise we could make it 'Dillentzburg Haag' to make everybody happy). The article currently mentions 'Diez', but there is no reason to presume that Diez (Dietz) was its capital just because the ruling branch of the House of Orange had been Nassau-Dietz ever since 1702. A rare possible RS, a passing remark by Dutch emeritus history professor Simon Groenveld, first states that the capital of this so-called Fürstentum Nassau-Oranien was at Dillenburg, then at The Hague. Although he is correct that a "Hoogduits Hofdepartement" existed in The Hague as a centre of joint administration of these German possessions from 1742 to 1795, this didn't lead to a unified political structure. (It would also have been strange if The Hague, located in the Dutch Republic's county of Holland, functioned as the 'capital' of these German possessions 300 kilometres away).
• The Final Act of the Congress of Vienna of 9 June 1815, articles 67, 70 and 71 (English, French), still referred to 4 separate possessions (Dillenburg, Dietz, Siegen and Hadamar) of the House of Nassau-Orange (67: Luxembourg, serving as a compensation for the principalities of Nassau Dillenburg, Siegen, Hadamar and Dietz; 70: the sovereign possessions which the house of Nassau-Orange held in Germany, namely, the principalities of Dillenburg, Dietz, Siegen, and Hadamar; 71: the four principalities of Orange Nassau) rather than one unified principality (with a single capital).
• Finally, the map in the infobox File:Nassau-Oranien-map.png is self-made, cites no sources and can therefore be considered to violate WP:OR.
• Therefore, claiming that these separate possessions constituted a single unified principality violates WP:SYNTH. Dutch Wikipedia deleted the Dutch equivalent page "Vorstendom Nassau-Orange" on 14 October 2020 for this reason; English Wikipedia should follow. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 11:20, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 13:20, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Pause for further research. I agree that Oranien-Nassau usually refers to the family and it may well be true that the Principality was not a single state with a central administration and capital. Nevertheless, it appears in the literature and may well, therefore, merit an article or perhaps a section at the House of Orange-Nassau article. For example, Brockhaus (1894) tells us that "... The last son was ... John William Friso, who had been the Prince of Orange since William III's death and who named his principality Orange-Nassau..." [1] and there appear to be documents relating to the Fürstentum Oranien-Nassau in the Münster State Archives.[2] There are further documents under the heading of Principality of Oranien-Nassau at the NRW and Hessian State Archives. There is an online article entitled Principality of Nassau-Diez / Nassau-Orange and so on. Perhaps the article goes too far in implying it was a unified state, but it is clearly an accepted term for some sort of political entity under the House of Nassau-Orange otherwise there wouldn't be state archives related to it, which appear to be frequently referred to in the literature. Bermicourt (talk) 17:43, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I will concede that there are some sources which use the term. That neither necessarily means that they're reliable, nor that they're relevant. The greatest confusion is with the Principality of Nassau-Orange-Fulda, a state that did exist from 1802 to 1806 and carried various names, including 'Nassau-Orange-Fulda', 'Nassau-Orange', 'Orange-Nassau', 'Fulda and Corvey', or just 'Fulda'. The NRW and Hessian state archives clearly refer to Fulda. hoeckmann.de sort of lumps them all together, claiming 'Seit 1747 residieren die Fürsten von Nassau in Den Haag und die Linie nennt sich Fürsten von Nassau-Oranien', contradicting Brockhaus who claims John William Friso was the first to 'name his principality Orange-Nassau' 'since William III's death' [in 1702]. If Groenveld is to be believed, the establishment of the Hofdepartement in 1742 was the start of the 'Principality of Orange-Nassau'. Not only do we now have three different alleged capitals, but also three different alleged founding dates.

  That's why I'm cautious, and do not trust just any source saying something. The sources you just brought up are, unfortunately, all flawed in one way or another for the purpose of proving the historicity of the so-called 'Principality of Orange-Nassau'. Besides, people in the Ancien Régime pretended lots of titles without actually owning the lands associated to them, or those lands being administratively unified (as said, you can call the Habsburg domains in Iberia before 1707 'the Kingdom of Spain' if you really want, but legally it didn't exist yet). E.g. Johann VI, Count of Nassau-Dillenburg kept calling himself 'Count of Katzenelnbogen', even though his father had already lost the War of the Katzenelnbogen Succession (1500–1557) and had to renounce Katzenelnbogen. If some 18th-century prince of Orange who also happens to be the count of some subdivision(s) of Nassau starts pretending the title 'Prince of Nassau-Orange', that has no legally binding force if it's not recognised by a superior authority (Wikipedically speaking, it's WP:SELFPUB). This is why I quote the 1815 Treaty of Vienna, which is arguably one of the highest-ranking treaties in international law of this era. It regards these Nassau territories as separate possessions, enumerates them as 'four', and names all four twice. We'll need very good reasons to disregard those stipulations. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:35, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  To cite another high-ranking treaty: The Reichsdeputationshauptschluss of 25 February 1803: Hauptschluß der außerordentlichen Reichsdeputation vom 25. Februar 1803. If it really existed '1702–1806, 1813–1815', as the article claims, we should find it in this treaty. But it never mentions a state called 'Nassau-Oranien' or 'Oranien-Nassau' (it only mentions the word 'oranien' in 'Oranienhof'). There is no mention of the Prince of Orange, only 'Dem Fürsten von Nassau-Dillenburg, zur Entschädigung für die Statthalterschaft, und seine Domänen in Holland und Belgien: die Bisthümer Fulda und Corvey...' in short, this is about the recognition of the 1802 creation of the Principality of Fulda and Corvey. The only mentions of Nassau are 'Nassau-Hadamar, Nassau-Dillenburg, Nassau-Weilburg, Nassau-Usingen'. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:55, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The 23/4 May 1802 treaty between France and William V (with Prussia as guarantor) mentions 'His highness the prince of Nassau-Orange-Dillenburg-Dietz', another phrase that seems to be an ad hoc jumbling together of titles. However, the fact that this term is used interchangeable with the term 'house of Nassau-Orange-Dillenburg-Dietz' suggests that this is a family name, not a state name. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:16, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Your suggestion for "a section at the House of Orange-Nassau article" seems like a good solution. That article is currently focusing on the stadtholderate and doesn't really mention the German possessions, but this dynasty is almost the only factor grouping them together. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 07:01, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:31, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Is there scope for an article about the "Territories of Orange-Nassau in the Holy Roman Empire" or similar? If they were all administered in a similar way then an overview article sounds useful. The article House of Orange-Nassau seems very Netherlands-focused, and I don't know how these territories would fit within that article or what WP:DUE weight their coverage might have within the overall story of the House. Wherever it is merged/rewritten, it would need substantial rewriting based on the comments above. CMD (talk) 07:32, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - As well as being Staatholders of most of the Dutch United Provinces, the Princes of Orange (a polity in southern France) had territories in Germany as Counts of Nassau. It is perfectly legitimate to have an article on these territories, unless someone can show that there is an appropriate merge target. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:43, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Perhaps, but then the current title would still be misleading; it should rather say something like 'principalities/possessions of Orange-Nassau in Germany'. But I think Bermicourt's suggestion to merge that information into the article House of Orange-Nassau is far more preferable. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:38, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify per Bermicourt. There currently is no evidence of WP:SIGCOV and its not clear that the article in its current form is verifiably true/accurate. As such I oppose keeping the article in main space. It's possible that there is an article here, and it's possible there isn't. I suggest we give time for research and modification in draft space. It may be an article develops, or that parts of the article become sourced and included elsewhere in other existing articles as mentioned above. Regardless, all of that takes research and time and editorial decision making which shouldn't be held under the gun of an AFD deletion. Best.4meter4 (talk) 03:01, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 05:47, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The nom's main argument for deletion is that this state never existed as a legal entity. I don't think anyone is arguing it was, however, that is not a deletion criterion. The term is used in numerous sources including historically archived documents, some are focussed on Orange-Nassau-Fulda, others aren't. The point is that the term and the concept existed and Wikipedia's job is to explain that, not ignore it. Readers who come across the term "Principality of Orange-Nassau" online or in the literature or any one of the German state archives should reasonably expect an encyclopaedic entry on it. Of course, as suggested before, that may not require a separate article. Bermicourt (talk) 08:34, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not necessarily opposed to a separate article, but certainly the current title is misleading as it claims or implies political/administrative unity where there is none. If we are in favour of a separate article, its title should say something like 'principalities/possessions of Orange-Nassau in Germany' (which may still be OR, but far less misleading). But I think your suggestion to merge all this information into the article House of Orange-Nassau is far more preferable. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:46, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:39, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete was mildly aghast to find Googling this gets the usual first result for WP - but as per the nominator's extensive (and my searching backed them up) research, the actual Principality of Orange-Nassau never existed as a political entity under that title. Therefore this article is indeed SYNTH/OR (and, devastatingly, totally unsourced for some 12 years of its miserable existence). We have Principality of Orange as an article and that is perfectly proper. We also have House of Orange-Nassau and that is also perfectly proper. This, however, needs to go. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:25, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• This is confusing, not least because we have County of Nassau and only a selection of articles on its divisions. It would not seem unusual to me if the personal union of all the counties of Nassau in the hands of a titular Prince of Orange were commonly referred to as the principality of Orange-Nassau. The Historisches Lexikon der Deutschen Länder has an article "Nassau-Oranien (Fürsten)". Srnec (talk) 13:48, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  And yet there were not recognised as such in the 1815 Treaty of Vienna, which regarded them as 4 separate entities ruled by the same dynasty. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:42, 15 October 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.