Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Most royal candidate theory

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 of the debate was Keep. Stifle 02:18, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Most royal candidate theory

As the changes to the article made by User:Nunh-huh show, the theory is false. Wikipedia is not a respository for absurd, debunked rumor-theories. Additionally, a search for "most royal candidate theory" on Google (0 results) indicates that this is a neologism as well. Not worth merging with any other article. —Cleared as filed. 15:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• I'd keep it. The theory is false, but reappears with each four year election cycle in the U.S. and people actually believe it. It's nonsense, and I think it's probably worth pointing out that it's nonsense. Many buy it hook, line, and sinker. - Nunh-huh 16:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• IRONCLAD KEEP As above. --Chazz88 16:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC). Needs cleanup and perhaps NPOV. --Chazz88 16:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, same conditions as above. Even I have heard that nonsense pervaded before! Dan 20:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Very convincing arguments above. -- JJay 20:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep regardless of the ridiculously unlikely nature of the theory even on face value (it's something like four quadrillion to one against such a coincidence...unless we're to believe there's a secret succession committee running the elections), it is a REAL "myth". One might as well delete all the reference to Greek mythology, since nobody believes them any more. And obviously bigfoot, the loch ness monster, and Atlantis are right out; I'm sure the editor wanting to delete this will be off to those pages to have them removed next.

Oh, and as for the ridiculous "zero google" nonsense: harold brooks-baker "most royal" I can come up with a dozen other keyword combos which also produce at least hundreds of hits typically related to the "most royal" theory. Kaz 04:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Please assume good faith and don't make attacks on AfD nominators. User:Zoe|^(talk) 04:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I get tired of coming across one editor after another who doesn't grasp the concept of wikipedia being an "inclusive source", and wanting to delete...not fix...anything that doesn't fit in precisely with their worldview. After a while I get a bit pissy with the most blatant ones. Kaz 04:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Very well said. Thanks for your honesty. -- JJay 07:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• Extremely weak keep, but all of the OR and opinion has to go. User:Zoe|^(talk) 04:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Week Keep per Zoe -- Thesquire (talk -
• Keep The theory is debunked, but the article appears somewhat necessary. -anymonous

contribs) 22:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

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.