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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:03, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional heirs apparent who never acceded[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)

Fancruft; no references suggesting this is a notable topic. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:08, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:30, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Classic WP:LISTCRUFT. Predominantly unsourced. Ajf773 (talk) 20:09, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The rationale for this list is stated on the talk page. It was made in 2013 from Category:Fictional heirs apparent who never acceded, which was created in 2012 by Andrei Iosifovich (talk · contribs). The category was converted to a list before deletion per consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 August 1#Category:Fictional heirs apparent who never acceded.

For the record, as the page name is not fully self-explanatory, the intro is as follows: This is a list of fictional characters who were legally heirs apparent, but never acceded to the throne or title to which they were entitled. This may be because they died before inheriting it, the throne was abolished, a usurper took the inheritance, or they simply chose not assert their birthright. While claiming a birthright can be a powerful motif in literature, some stories instead draw upon the tragedy or frustration of not being able to claim a title to which a character seemed destined to succeed. – Fayenatic London 21:03, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sorry, but this is completely everything wikipedia is not in my opinion. Not to mention failing WP:GNG. Govvy (talk) 21:56, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The majority of the information contained in this list is un-sourced, and while there may be sources found on some of the individual entries on the list, there are none that actually talk about the concept or grouping as a whole to show any sort of notability to the topic. As such, it pretty much fails WP:LISTN, along with being pure cruft. Rorshacma (talk) 22:16, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nobody, but nobody (except Fayenatic), goes around wondering about such an obscure set of criteria. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:43, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While a list of real-world people with this attribute can be appropriate (and exists within Heir apparent), this is an arbitrary and in-universe subset of characters. Wholly implausible that anyone would search this. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 07:34, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Bizarrely specific category. Cosmic Sans (talk) 18:23, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:16, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT, WP:LIST, and discussion above, not even wrong. Most of those listed were not actually named or legally heir apparent. Bearian (talk) 19:29, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT. Aoba47 (talk) 04:10, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources suggest this is a coherent topic of interest.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:48, 16 August 2019 (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.