Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Most royal candidate theory (2nd nomination)

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 keep. The presence of sources have ruled out the contents being a hoax, and there have been no calls for deletion except for the nominator. Sjakkalle (Check!) 21:14, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Most royal candidate theory

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

I can't find any evidence that this is actually a theory outside of Wikipedia. No mention in any books, no Google Scholar hits (I'd expect one in either direction for an even basically-known theory), and the web hits (including searches for Brooks-Baker, alleged proponent of the theory) do not come up with anything viable, and perhaps only exist at all due to this article. Possible hoax? Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:41, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:54, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:54, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is certainly not a hoax; the nominator must not be old enough to remember Brooks-Baker's quadrennial pronouncements (when he was alive) before each American presidential election. For example, in 1996, in The New York Times, we can read "American Presidential candidates with ties to royalty have a distinct advantage over those bereft of noble connections. Or so says HAROLD B. BROOKS-BAKER, publishing director of Burke's Peerage, the British authority on aristocratic genealogy." The Times' coverage is typical, as it is careless about the fact that Burke's had nothing to do with Brooks-Baker's predictions. - Nunh-huh 04:22, 25 December 2013 (UTC) See also: Brooks-Baker being debunked in the Times in 1988 (Quoting Brooks-Baker: "The genes or chromosomes for leaders come forward whether it's kings or presidents. You cannot hold back the genes."). - Nunh-huh 04:31, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This article is pretty obviously real. Because the "less royal" candidate won in 2004 (ostensibly the first time this happened in US history), it's no longer as serious a theory as it was, and of course its main advocate died the next year, and so is no longer on every tabloid talk show (and some legit news shows when they're slumming) talking about it every presidential election, but it was more than noteworthy at the time, ergo still merits inclusion. —Kaz (talk) 17:39, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some references, to make this a bit clearer. I am astonished that another commenter tried to claim that there were no real secondary references. They were embarrassingly easy to find. —Kaz (talk) 18:16, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In all fairness, though it was presented as a "serious" theory, no one with any brains ever took it seriously, quickly realizing it was pretty much Brooks-Baker's publicity stunt, eagerly taken up by a willingly misinformative media in their quest to fill air-time. The article has, in former revisions, pointed out counterexamples which disproved the theory well before 2004: pairs of elections in which two candidates faced off, with one winning the first time, and the other winning the second time. Obviously in one of those elections of each pair, the "least royal" won. (Thomas Jefferson vs John Adams in 1796 and 1800; Andrew Jackson vs John Quincy Adams in 1824 and 1828; William Henry Harrison vs Martin Van Buren in 1836 and 1840; Grover Cleveland vs Benjamin Harrison in 1888 and 1892….) - Nunh-huh 03:04, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Found one journal article on the topic after a brief search. -Well-rested ^Talk 10:40, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:50, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let's be real, this was listed for deletion because someone was too lazy to do their research, and therefore leapt to the conclusion that it may be a hoax. It's obviously not, and is clearly noteworthy. If nobody's discussing, it's probably because this is so painfully obvious. — Kaz (talk) 05:56, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it's not lazy, it's that the "theory" does not appear to be noteworthy and came across as hoaxish. The idea of royal lineage within the ranks of presidential candidates is one that's gotten attention, but not really this theory. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:29, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - The nominator claimed he couldn't find any secondary sources at all, and suggested the article, itself, was a hoax. Those of us who DID bother to check were able to find a great many major secondary sources, with just minutes of looking. If the New York Times, Reuters, Guardian, and USA Today considered it worth covering, repeatedly, over a twenty year period, then it's clearly noteworthy. Again, the deletion was proposed with the claim that there was no such theory in the first place, not that all the major media covering the very real theory was not sufficient to make it worth inclusion.
    — Kaz (talk) 19:17, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:ODD, WP:FRINGE, and truth is stranger than fiction. I recall it being discussed every four years on traditional media, although it seems to have faded into the background of Obama birth certificate conspiracies and the like. Bearian (talk) 20:47, 8 January 2014 (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.